Matthias Geerdsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> app-admin/ulogd has an open security bug and has been without a
> maintainer for 6 months now.
>
> Anyone interested please put yourself in metadata.xml and have a look at
> bug #161882
>
Probably mine, let me double check.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing li
Andrej Kacian wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:04:31 -0500
> Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Submit your ideas here, so we can discuss them. I will be choosing one
>> idea that we think we can accomplish to test out the idea of
>> Council-driven projects.
>
> How about unified (a
sanchan wrote:
> missing -fno-strict-aliasing wherever there are bad programming
> practices and so on;
IIUC, GCC's current -Wstrict-aliasing implementation has a number of
flaws. According to a recent thread[i] on the GCC ml..
> The current implementation of -Wstrict-aliasing looks at a single
On Friday 26 January 2007 17:19, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 26 January 2007 14:12, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > Furthermore, maybe it could check the compression type if any on the
> > original and then
>
> i purposefully choose to not go this route because i dont want to start
> adding handling
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 26 January 2007 14:03, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to make doman gunzip and recompress until packages
>> have been fixed. Now users are getting broken man pages with recent
>> portage. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163954
>
> considering
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:04:31 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Submit your ideas here, so we can discuss them. I will be choosing one
> idea that we think we can accomplish to test out the idea of
> Council-driven projects.
How about unified (and enforced) rules about Manifest
On Friday 26 January 2007 14:03, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to make doman gunzip and recompress until packages
> have been fixed. Now users are getting broken man pages with recent
> portage. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163954
considering the trivial amount of time req
On Friday 26 January 2007 14:12, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Furthermore, maybe it could check the compression type if any on the
> original and then
i purposefully choose to not go this route because i dont want to start adding
handling for arbitrary compression types ... when such a list exists, we
On Friday 26 January 2007 20:12, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>
> Furthermore, maybe it could check the compression type if any on the
> original and then
> a) If file isn't compressed yet compress with the chosen method
> (compressor) by user
> b) If file is compressed with the same compressor than chosen
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 21:03 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the new version of portage has customizable compression ... this is cool as
> > now people can do bzip/gzip/whatever
> >
> > the downside is that it breaks with packages that assume everything is
> > compressed wi
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the new version of portage has customizable compression ... this is cool as
> now people can do bzip/gzip/whatever
>
> the downside is that it breaks with packages that assume everything is
> compressed with gzip ... so here is a list of common things ebuilds should
> no
Hi,
app-admin/ulogd has an open security bug and has been without a
maintainer for 6 months now.
Anyone interested please put yourself in metadata.xml and have a look at
bug #161882
--
Matthias Geerdsen (vorlon)
Gentoo Linux Security Team
http://security.gentoo.org
signature.asc
Description
On Friday 26 January 2007 03:40, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> I'm asking, hoping for an explicit answer: so if upstream provides
> gzip-compressed files, should ebuilds gunzip them, install them, and
> then let portage recompress them?
currently i'm of the opinion yes ... while i would say it isnt unco
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:19:23AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the new version of portage has customizable compression ... this is cool as
> now people can do bzip/gzip/whatever
>
> the downside is that it breaks with packages that assume everything is
> compressed with gzip ... so here is a
the new version of portage has customizable compression ... this is cool as
now people can do bzip/gzip/whatever
the downside is that it breaks with packages that assume everything is
compressed with gzip ... so here is a list of common things ebuilds should
not be doing:
doman foo.1.gz
dosym f
15 matches
Mail list logo
