Re: Sourceware Cyber Security FAQ

2024-11-27 Thread Jeffrey Walton via Gcc
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:35 AM Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Hi all, > > After lots of discussions at some of our Open Office hours, at the > Cauldron, with other Software Freedom organizations and some of our > hardware and services providers we now have a Sourceware Cyber Security > FAQ explaining

Re: On pull request workflows for the GNU toolchain

2024-09-23 Thread Jeffrey Walton via Gcc
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 8:08 AM Thomas Koenig via Gdb wrote: > > [For the fortran people: Discussion on gcc@] > > Just a general remark. > > There are people, such as myself, who regularly mess up > their git repositories because they have no mental model > of what git is doing (case in point: The

Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor

2024-04-09 Thread Jeffrey Walton via Gcc
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 4:11 PM Paul Koning via Gdb wrote: > > > On Apr 9, 2024, at 3:59 PM, Jonathon Anderson via Gcc > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024, 10:57 Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > >> On Apr 09 2024, anderson.jonath...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >>> - This xz backdoor injection unpacked

Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor

2024-04-03 Thread Jeffrey Walton via Gcc
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:33 AM Martin Uecker via Gdb wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, dem 03.04.2024 um 16:00 +0200 schrieb Michael Matz: > > [...] > > (And, FWIW, testing for features isn't "complex". And have you looked at > > other build systems? I have, and none of them are less complex, just > > op

Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor

2024-04-02 Thread Jeffrey Walton via Gcc
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 7:35 PM Paul Koning via Gdb wrote: > [...] > > I agree that GDB, and for that matter other projects with significant numbers > of contributors, are not nearly as likely to be vulnerable to this sort of > attack. But I worry that xz may not be the only project that's small

Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor

2024-04-02 Thread Jeffrey Walton via Gcc
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 6:09 PM Guinevere Larsen via Gdb wrote: > [...] > What likely happened for the maintainer who acted in bad faith was that > they entered the project with bad faith intent from the start - seeing > as they were only involved with the project for 2 years, and there was > much

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

2022-11-16 Thread Jeffrey Walton via Gcc
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 1:18 PM Paul Eggert wrote: > ... > If Clang's threatened pickiness were of some real use elsewhere, it > might be justifiable for default Clang to break Autoconf. But so far we > haven't seen real-world uses that would justify this pickiness for > Autoconf's use of 'char me

Re: [OMPD] API version formatting

2020-06-22 Thread Jeffrey Walton via Gcc
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:47 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 01:26:59PM -0400, y2s1982 . via Gcc wrote: > > I have a question on API version formatting. > > I have been looking at the get_api_version() and get_api_version_string() > > documentation: > > https://www.open

Re: GCC 10.0.1 Status Report (2019-04-30)

2020-05-05 Thread Jeffrey Walton via Gcc
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:19 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > > Status > == > > We have reached zero P1 regressions today and releases/gcc-10 branch has > been created; GCC 10.1-rc1 will be built and announced later tonight > or tomorrow. > The branch is now frozen for blocking regressions a