Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 15:07 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
tl;dr can we turn them back off in the profile? In any scenario where
they are beneficial, there's a better place to put them.
Easily doable with lzma, if there is consensus for it.
Slightly more complex
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 15:07 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > tl;dr can we turn them back off in the profile? In any scenario where
> > they are beneficial, there's a better place to put them.
>
> Easily doable with lzma, if there is consensus for it.
>
> Slightly more complex for zstd since t
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
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
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
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
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?
> # This just makes sense nowadays, if only for distfiles...
> USE="lzma zstd"
Hi all,
so here's a small update on the state of the 23.0 profiles:
* For all arches, the 23.0 profiles are now marked at the same stability status
(mostly for the CI and pkgcheck) as before the 17.x profiles. Most 17.x
profiles
have been downgraded to "exp".
* All stage downloads (with th
13 matches
Mail list logo
