Andreas K. Huettel posted on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 15:07:01 +0200 as excerpted:
> Am Sonntag, 7. April 2024, 14:51:55 CEST schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
[USE="lzma zstd" in 23.0 profiles]
>> [R]emarkably bad timing. How it looks: Gentoo's response to the xz
>> incident is to have me rebuild my entire sys
On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 01:22 +0100, Alex Boag-Munroe wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 22:09, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > What I am saying is that I want the freedom to not have things
> > pointlessly enabled on my systems, because similar problems (and worse)
> > happen all day every day. The less
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 22:09, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> What I am saying is that I want the freedom to not have things
> pointlessly enabled on my systems, because similar problems (and worse)
> happen all day every day. The less exposure I have, the better. The
> liblzma backdoor was timely becau
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 16:48 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> So, what you're basically saying, is that the best Gentoo response right
> now would be to frantically remove LZMA support everywhere? I'm sure
> that would be so much better than our response of masking vulnerable
> versions and issuing
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 08:51 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 14:35 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >
> > Uhh, I dont really remember, I think some Chinese-sounding guy asked
> > me for it... (j/k)
>
> It is remarkably bad timing. How it looks: Gentoo's response to the xz
> I see no way of migrating to 23.0 profile because of not-recompilable
> packages that are installed (over 4 years) which block --emptytree,
> and do not wish to be forced to migrate to merged-usr on an openrc box
> without a compelling need (on principle).
That sounds a bit like self-inflicted p
Am Sonntag, 7. April 2024, 14:51:55 CEST schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
> On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 14:35 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >
> > Uhh, I dont really remember, I think some Chinese-sounding guy asked
> > me for it... (j/k)
>
> It is remarkably bad timing. How it looks: Gentoo's response t
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 14:35 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> Uhh, I dont really remember, I think some Chinese-sounding guy asked
> me for it... (j/k)
It is remarkably bad timing. How it looks: Gentoo's response to the xz
incident is to have me rebuild my entire system with everything that
c
# Ben Kohler (2024-04-07)
# Abandoned upstream long ago in favor of Unifi Protect (running only on an
# official Unifi appliance. Likely contains lots of security holes in
bundled
# libs.
# Removal on 2024-05-07. Bug #928881
acct-group/unifi-video
acct-user/unifi-video
media-video/unifi-video
# Ben Kohler (2024-04-07)
# Long ago forked to and obsoleted by sys-apps/memtest86+. Upstream has
# abandoned this for their proprietary UEFI-based one (packaged in
gentoo as
# as sys-apps/memtest86-bin).
# Removal on 2024-05-07. Bug #502464, #607494, #628528, #750677, #887003,
# #912973, #920
Am Sonntag, 7. April 2024, 04:03:01 CEST schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
> On Sat, 2024-04-06 at 17:06 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > so here's a small update on the state of the 23.0 profiles:
> >
>
> Why was this silently added to make.defaults for all 23.0 profiles?
>
> > #
> > Most 17.x profiles have been downgraded to "exp".
>
> I could imagine there is a reason to downgrade those back to 'exp',
> could you elaborate a bit on that?
>
> Isn't it bit strange that a 'stable' profiles gets downgraded back to
> 'exp'? Then again, I am not sure about the implications
> Thanks for the update and the work on the 23.0 profiles. :)
>> Most 17.x profiles have been downgraded to "exp".
> I could imagine there is a reason to downgrade those back to 'exp',
> could you elaborate a bit on that?
>
> Isn't it bit strange that a 'stable' profiles gets downgraded back to
> '
On 06/04/2024 17.06, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Hi all,
so here's a small update on the state of the 23.0 profiles:
Thanks for the update and the work on the 23.0 profiles. :)
Most 17.x profiles have been downgraded to "exp".
I could imagine there is a reason to downgrade those back to 'ex
Sam James wrote:
> Eddie Chapman writes:
>> Below is a guide I've written to removing app-arch/xz-utils in case
>> anyone else wants to do so. Attached is the current version of the Bash
>> wrapper script I now use in place of /usr/bin/xz
>>
>> Comments, corrections on anything technical in the g
15 matches
Mail list logo
