On 1/26/12 5:36 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:23 AM, justin wrote:
>> We (members of the sci team) agreed to stick to the new versioning so we
>> need a "pseudo-downgrade".
>> For your help:
>>
>> echo ">=sci-libs/arpack-96" >> /etc/portage/package.mask
>
> Wouldn't this be
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 06:58, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> pedantically, PIE+ASLR makes it significantly harder to exploit, not
> impossible
>
> if we could get some general performance numbers that show non-PIE vs PIE,
> that'd help make the case for turning PIE on by default regardless of
> set*id
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:23 AM, justin wrote:
> We (members of the sci team) agreed to stick to the new versioning so we
> need a "pseudo-downgrade".
> For your help:
>
> echo ">=sci-libs/arpack-96" >> /etc/portage/package.mask
Wouldn't this be better-suited to a news item combined with a mask
Hi,
This is addressed to a all sci-libs/arpack ~arch consumers.
Please test version 3.0.2. It is basically version 96-r2, but from a new
upstream. The old is dead for some time, resulting in several downstream
patches. The scilab team has now picked up the maintenance and the
patches. But they cha
On 01/26/2012 06:01 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
# Samuli Suominen (26 Jan 2012)
# No support for stable TIFF 4.x wrt #400925 with multiple
# other issues wrt #297150, #356083, #335864 and #318485.
# Version bump request been open since 2011-03-30 wrt #361187
# Unless fixed, removal in 30 days
N
# Samuli Suominen (26 Jan 2012)
# No support for stable TIFF 4.x wrt #400925 with multiple
# other issues wrt #297150, #356083, #335864 and #318485.
# Version bump request been open since 2011-03-30 wrt #361187
# Unless fixed, removal in 30 days
