On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 06:43:55PM +0200, Dan wrote:
>
> The ZFS developers proposed the Linux developers to rewrite the whole
> ZFS code and use GPL, but surprisingly the linux developers didn't
> accept. See below:
> https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/8314
I've read the thread, and there
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:51:10PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Modified Direct changes git merge
> upstream files,to upstream files (.dsc: 1.0-with-diff or
> plus debian/*. single-debian-patch)
> Maybe d/patches, depending.
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:16:58AM +0530, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
>
> In a fresh install of Buster with XFCE desktop, locking the screen
> blanks the monitor and the monitor enters a power save state. After
> that, neither moving the mouse nor typing on the keyboard would turn
> the monitor back
Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: Survey: git packaging practices / repository
format"):
> On May 29 2019, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > The thing his approach really seems to have going for it is that he
> > gives up on the debian history fast forwarding and instead rebases a lot
> > for a cleaner history.
>
"G. Branden Robinson" writes:
> My two cents[4] is that DSA should make its purchasing and hardware
> solicitation decisions with the architectural security issue fairly far
> down the priority list. It saddens me to say that, but this new class
> of exploits, what van Schaik et al. call "microa
Georg Faerber writes:
> On 19-06-01 11:04:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I did some research on that a while back and ended up not filing a bug
>> about it because it looked relatively pointless. It appeared to be a
>> deep design choice on both sides, and not something anyone was likely
>> to solve
On May 29 2019, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I'm certainly going to look at dck-buildpackage now, because what he
> describes is a workflow I'd like to be using within Debian.
>
> For some projects I want to ignore orig tarballs as much as I can. I'm
> happy with native packages, or 3.0 quilt with single
At 2019-06-01T09:04:39+0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Are we then looking more closely at AMD-based machines given that
> those had less problems around speculative attacks?
To borrow a phrase from Christopher Hitchens, this comment gives a
hostage to fortune.
My team at work closely follows (and pa
Hi Russ, all,
On 19-06-01 11:04:28, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I did some research on that a while back and ended up not filing a bug
> about it because it looked relatively pointless. It appeared to be a
> deep design choice on both sides, and not something anyone was likely
> to solve, so I just swi
gregor herrmann writes:
> I can't reproduce this in a quick test:
> Terminal 1: sleep 5 ; notify-send foo
> Terminal 2: xscreensaver-command -lock
> No "foo" notification pops up over the screensaver image.
> (This is with awesome, maybe the story is different for desktop
> environments.)
Ye
On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 11:04:28 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It's worth noting here that xscreensaver has an IMO serious security
> vulnerability (unless maybe this has been fixed?): because it doesn't
> integrate properly with the desktop, it doesn't hide desktop
> notifications.
I can't reproduc
Adam Borowski writes:
> But, the culprit is light-locker. In general, it's in such a buggy
> state that I believe it shouldn't be in the distribution at all, much
> less a default of any kind. After it replaced xscreensaver[1] as the
> xfce's dependency, I went into some pretty heated arguments
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:29:31PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Using unstable myself, I'm not sure what to recommend for Buster.
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/physlock
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hey Adam
On 2019/06/01 18:29, Adam Borowski wrote:
> At the time of the xscreensaver debacle, there was no sane alternative
> (candidates depended on 80% of GNOME, offered no feedback nor discoverable
> controls to the user, etc). There _is_ a wonderful alternative now:
> xfce4-screensaver, which
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 11:06:42AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > This appears to be a bug in light-locker specifically, which is the
> > default screen lock program with XFCE with lightdm. See, for instance:
> >
> > https://github.com/the-cavalry/light-locker/issues/114
> >
> > Switching to an
> > Switching to another greeter from the default gtk-greeter appears to help
> > according to that bug, which may mean that the bug is actually in
> > lightdm-gtk-greeter. There doesn't appear to be a Debian bug for this; it
> > might be a good idea to open one against light-locker (or, if you co
Hi Russ,
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 06:32:52PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> (This probably belonged on debian-user, but since I have background on
> this specific problem and already did the research.)
While this seems to be a problem for debian-user its very sensible that
the issue was raised here
On 5/31/2019 11:04 PM, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> Before you ask: an insecure hypervisor is an insecure buildd.
Are we then looking more closely at AMD-based machines given that those
had less problems around speculative attacks?
Kind regards
Philipp Kern
18 matches
Mail list logo
