> On Thu, 8 May 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> PMS: Are versions allowed to have more than 8 digits?
> -
> specifically to ask the package maintainers with extremely
> long PVs whether they were needed and to test the
On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:17:08 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > The new lzma-utils codebase uses liblzma, written in C. It's at the
> > alpha stage but supposedly supports encoding/decoding the current
> > lzma format "well enough" (;P). It probably has some f
Hi all,
Here is the summary from today's council meeting. The complete log will
show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly.
Thanks,
Donnie
Quick summary
=
Active-developer document: We reviewed it and made some suggestions for
improving both the document and the onlin
On N, 2008-05-08 at 21:09 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > e) It has been suggested the support should have been added with new
> > EAPI instead of local build deps (some of which are missing, for
> > instance in the hand-rolled for-no-reason-whatsoever .tar.lzma format
> > net-tools doesn't have a
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > e) It has been suggested the support should have been added with new
> > EAPI instead of local build deps (some of which are missing, for
> > instance in the hand-rolled for-no-reason-whatsoever .tar.lzma format
> >
On 08-05-2008 21:45:00 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> d) too early adoption in critical system packages - once above issues
> are solved, higher levels should be using it first, before critical
> system packages (for example shows in the circular dep hell with m4)
been there, done that.
> e) It ha
On K, 2008-05-07 at 15:34 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 07-05-2008 16:23:12 +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > This is a plea and also a request for comments on the matter of
> > using .tar.lzma tarballs or not, and for what packages this is
> > acceptable and for what not.
>
> Just as a little b
On Thursday 08 May 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Additionally to follow myself up, I believe one of the security
> issues was execution of arbitrary data either when untarred or just
> decompressed (assuming a specially crafted lzma file).
Can you please point me to the location where this is men
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You miss my point. GNU tar sometimes changes its on disk format (and
> will be doing so again at some point for xattrs)
It's not really important to the discussion, but...
The TAR format is designed as such that on disk formats can be extended
withou
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:32:34 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:17:08 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's troubling to me that projects are using lzma when it's on disk
format isn'
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:17:08 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's troubling to me that projects are using lzma when it's on disk
format isn't even final and the project has security issues.
You mean projects like 'GNU tar'?
On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:32:34 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:17:08 -0400
> > Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It's troubling to me that projects are using lzma when it's on disk
> >> format isn't even final and the pr
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:17:08 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's troubling to me that projects are using lzma when it's on disk
format isn't even final and the project has security issues.
You mean projects like 'GNU tar'?
As far as I know Ci
On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:17:08 -0400
Doug Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's troubling to me that projects are using lzma when it's on disk
> format isn't even final and the project has security issues.
You mean projects like 'GNU tar'?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Ryan Hill wrote:
On Wed, 07 May 2008 16:23:12 +0300
Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
Over the course of this year, a lzma-utils buildtime dependency has
been added to a few system packages, to handle .tar.lzma tarballs.
This has huge implications on the requirement of the sys
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> >
> > Here you have latest pms revision built without kdebuild-1 spec:
> > http://dev.gentoo.org/~coldwind/pms.pdf
> >
>
> Already did (hence the bash
# Gilles Dartiguelongue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (08 May 2008)
# Masked for removal on 8 June 2008.
# Builds but as issues here and there.
# Not bumpable without fixing dead libs.
# See bug #216566.
gnome-extra/shermans-aquarium
btw, gai for example is masked for removal since January or so, guys
plea
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 12:23:39PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 04:15:10 -0700
> Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If PMS is going to be discussed in some form, it's a fair request
> > that folks have an easily readable version.
>
> The relevant sentence was provid
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If PMS is going to be discussed in some form, it's a fair request that
> > folks have an easily readable version.
>
> Here you have latest pms revision
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If PMS is going to be discussed in some form, it's a fair request that
> folks have an easily readable version.
Here you have latest pms revision built without kdebuild-1 spec:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~coldwind/pms.pdf
It'
> On Thu, 08 May 2008, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
>>> So it would also be possible to compile "lzmadec" without any need
>>> for C++. Just call "make" in subdirs liblzmadec and lzmadec.
>>
>> What about USE=decode-only or something similar for lzma-utils,
>> then? If desired, it could e
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should that be USE=-cxx? The help for USE=cxx says that this builds
> support for C++.
It was meant as setting a cxx USE on the ebuild, I wasn't certainly
meaning to disable the C++ parts with USE=cxx enabled ;)
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://blo
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
Hello,
Over the course of this year, a lzma-utils buildtime dependency has been
added to a few system packages, to handle .tar.lzma tarballs.
This has huge implications on the requirement of the system toolchain,
which is highly disturbing from a minimal (lets say embedded)
On Thu, 8 May 2008 04:15:10 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If PMS is going to be discussed in some form, it's a fair request
> that folks have an easily readable version.
The relevant sentence was provided. Had you bothered to read the
agenda, you would know this.
--
Ciaran McC
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 12:01:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 03:57:16 -0700
> Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:03:45AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > Requested attendees
> > > ===
> > >
> > > PMS: ciaranm, pkgcore
On Thu, 8 May 2008 03:57:16 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:03:45AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Requested attendees
> > ===
> >
> > PMS: ciaranm, pkgcore dev, portage dev, any other tools that care
> > about versions
>
> Might I su
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò) writes:
> USE=cxx should do just fine, it will disable the C++-related parts,
> whatever they are. Sincerely I'd quite like to enable it on my vserver's
> build chroots too.
Should that be USE=-cxx? The help for USE=cxx says that this builds
support f
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:03:45AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Requested attendees
> ===
>
> PMS: ciaranm, pkgcore dev, portage dev, any other tools that care about
> versions
Might I suggest that if PMS is going to be discussed, a copy of
PMS.pdf actually be available
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So it would also be possible to compile "lzmadec" without any need for
>> C++. Just call "make" in subdirs liblzmadec and lzmadec.
>
> What about USE=decode-only or something similar for lzma-utils, then? If
> desired, it could even be masked on "normal" pro
On 03:04 Wed 07 May , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
> meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
> channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
>
> If you're supposed to show up, please s
Ulrich Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Wed, 07 May 2008 16:55:39 +0200:
> The decoder of lzma-utils is also written in C only.
>
> So it would also be possible to compile "lzmadec" without any need for
> C++. Just call "make" in subdirs liblzmadec and lz
31 matches
Mail list logo
