Le mardi 10 septembre 2013 à 17:10 +0200, Fabian Groffen a écrit :
> On 10-09-2013 06:22:38 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > > pkg_preinst() {
> > >gnome2_gdk_pixbuf_savelist
> > > +
> > > + # Make sure loaders.cache belongs to gdk-pixbuf alone
> > > + local cache="usr/$(get_l
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 04:49:55 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, dirtyepic intends to patch gcc directly to enable
> -fstack-protector, changing the default at that level so it'll be used
> unless -fno-stack-protector is in CFLAGS. At least, that's how I
> i
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:41:34 -0400
Richard Yao wrote:
> A few thoughts:
>
> 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
> the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the default?
The kernel has supported building with -fstack-protector since 2.6.1
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 21:17:33 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
>> the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the
>> default?
>
> Nothing, si
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
> the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the default?
Nothing, since the kernel build system doesn't source make.conf. If
somebody creates an ebu
On 09/08/2013 08:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 19:08:57 -0400
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote:
>
>> Personally I think this would be a great stepping stone. If we add
>> - -fstack-protector to 4.8.1 it will improve security (only a little I
>> know) and give us an idea of wh
On 10-09-2013 06:22:38 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> > pkg_preinst() {
> >gnome2_gdk_pixbuf_savelist
> > +
> > + # Make sure loaders.cache belongs to gdk-pixbuf alone
> > + local cache="usr/$(get_libdir)/${PN}-2.0/2.10.0/loaders.cache"
> > +
> > + if [[ -e ${ROOT}${cach
Dnia 2013-09-10, o godz. 11:57:31
"Steven J. Long" napisał(a):
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > +systemd_install_serviced() {
> > + debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}"
> > +
> > + local src=${1}
> > + local service=${2}
> > +
> > + if [[ ! ${service} ]]; then
> > + [[ ${src} == *.c
We need to handle this in a different way for gtk+-2.24.20 and newer as
explained at:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476100
The patch is here:
https://476100.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=358136
If you have any problems with it, please tell me so.
Thanks
On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 18:06:56 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> So does anyone have any objections to making -fstack-protector the
> default? Now is the time to speak up.
On PARISC you get plenty of warning of how well it's going to work out:
(cc1|gcc|foo): warning: -fstack-protector not supported for thi
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > Nope. 'insinto' sets INSDESTTREE. Due to lack of proper scoping
>> > support in bash, we need to localize this variable to restore previous
>> > 'insinto' scope after leaving the function.
>>
>> Actually the only reason you are able to do
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:43:53AM +, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. The general gentoo policy is that "trivial" files such as bash-
> > completions, systemd unit files, etc, aren't to be install-controlled via
> > USE flags
>
> Then why is bash-com
Michał Górny wrote:
> +systemd_install_serviced() {
> + debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}"
> +
> + local src=${1}
> + local service=${2}
> +
> + if [[ ! ${service} ]]; then
> + [[ ${src} == *.conf ]] || die "Source file needs .conf suffix"
I would hoist this check
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Indeed. The general gentoo policy is that "trivial" files such as bash-
> completions, systemd unit files, etc, aren't to be install-controlled via
> USE flags
Then why is bash-completion still a global USE-flag?
Those few cases where it has a different ef
On 2013-09-09, at 7:31 PM, Alex Xu wrote:
> On 09/09/13 08:29 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>>
>> [1;32mIndex: gdk-pixbuf-2.28.2.ebuild[0;0m
>> [1;32m===[0;0m
>> [1;32mRCS file:
>> /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/x11-libs/gdk-pixb
Michał Górny wrote:
> > > the whole eclass is inside the " if [[ ! ${_GIT_R3} ]] " block.
> >
> > Rather than putting the whole eclass inside a block like that maybe
> > it's possible to test for that condition and "exit" early?
>
> exiting ebuild process in middle of inheritance chain is *not* a
Dnia 2013-09-10, o godz. 07:04:49
Peter Stuge napisał(a):
> Markos Chandras wrote:
> > the whole eclass is inside the " if [[ ! ${_GIT_R3} ]] " block.
>
> Rather than putting the whole eclass inside a block like that maybe
> it's possible to test for that condition and "exit" early?
Could you t
17 matches
Mail list logo
