Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] ppp 2.4.6 in testing breaks pptp connections in NetworkManager

ldap_simple.so > > (Good thing that anyone actually uses testing/ppp to notice these problems.) I've seen these issues but I didn't have enough time to come to a sane conclusion in order to report it. IIRC rp-pppoe in core has the same problem. pppd[27117]: Plugin /usr/lib/rp-pppoe/rp-pppoe.so is for pppd version 2.4.5, this is 2.4.6 Bug report at: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/39007 -- Arthur Țițeică signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [arch-general] libreoffice-writer upgrade

ubeslo.so testing/libreoffice-calc -- Arthur Țițeică signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Trimming down our default kernel configuration

rformance or any other concerning factor. -- Arthur Țițeică signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Trimming down our default kernel configuration

st case scenario in the Phoronix tests -- Postmark, and post the results here. -- Arthur Țițeică signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Trimming down our default kernel configuration

Hi, În ziua de Vineri 28 Martie 2014, la 12:54:44, Arthur Țițeică a scris: > As a side note I will try to test the worst case scenario in the Phoronix > tests -- Postmark, and post the results here. I managed to finish testing. As said above I picked up this test because it was the on

Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] Trimming down our default kernel configuration

there with CONFIG_SECURITY, it's just the modules that are missing. In the end the trimming guys gain nothing because the the security "bloat" (the LSM framework) is still in the kernel and the security guys lost the modules. Did I get anything wrong? -- Arthur Țițeică signature.