Andrew Savchenko posted on Thu, 08 Jan 2015 04:29:42 +0300 as excerpted:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:06:08 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> Done, this packages are now up for grabs:
>
>> net-proxy/privoxy
>
> I'll take them if there are no other people interested. If you are —
> feel free to add yourse
El mié, 07-01-2015 a las 19:19 -0500, Jonathan Callen escribió:
[...]
> The only reason there is a security issue with nethack (and other
> games like it) on Gentoo, and only on Gentoo, is that the games team
> policy requires that all games have permissions 0750, with group
> "games", and all user
Duncan posted on Thu, 08 Jan 2015 09:28:02 + as excerpted:
> Andrew Savchenko posted on Thu, 08 Jan 2015 04:29:42 +0300 as excerpted:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:06:08 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
>>> Done, this packages are now up for grabs:
>>
>>> net-proxy/privoxy
>>
>> I'll take them if
On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 17:47:10 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> # Michael Weber (9 Jul 2013)
> # Masked for security bug 450746, CVE-2012-6095
>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 07-01-2015 a las 19:19 -0500, Jonathan Callen escribió:
> [...]
>> The only reason there is a security issue with nethack (and other
>> games like it) on Gentoo, and only on Gentoo, is that the games team
>> policy requires that all game
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 03:06:08PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Done, this packages are now up for grabs:
> net-libs/libecap
Got it. Need it as a dependency for net-proxy/squid. Help is always
welcome.
--
Eray
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 05:53:47AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El mié, 07-01-2015 a las 19:19 -0500, Jonathan Callen escribió:
> > [...]
> >> The only reason there is a security issue with nethack (and other
> >> games like it) on Gentoo, and
I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
arch teams.
Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down anywhere?
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their
> own packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off
> of the arch teams.
> Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down
> anywhere?
Sure i
08.01.2015 20:15, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
> I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
> packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
> arch teams.
>
> Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down anywhere?
>
amd64/x86 are
On 01/08/2015 12:57 PM, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
>
> 08.01.2015 20:15, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
>> I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
>> packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
>> arch teams.
>>
>> Did that really happen or am I making
>
> I'm going to write a devmanual patch but don't want to sound like a lunatic.
>
Also, an informal definition on what is supposed to be appropriate
hardware and userland (e.g. clean amd64 profile) and what are keywording
best practices would be nice to have. (Alternatively a link to the
respect
On 01/08/2015 01:42 PM, Matthias Maier wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm going to write a devmanual patch but don't want to sound like a lunatic.
>>
>
> Also, an informal definition on what is supposed to be appropriate
> hardware and userland (e.g. clean amd64 profile) and what are keywording
> best practices
08.01.2015 21:12, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
> On 01/08/2015 12:57 PM, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
>> 08.01.2015 20:15, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
>>> I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
>>> packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
>>> arch team
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:00:16 +0300
Mikle Kolyada wrote:
> Major arches are amd64 and x86, nothing more. There is a bug for it
> already [1]
Isn't x86 basically a dead legacy arch by now?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/08/2015 02:23 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 01/07/2015 04:19 PM, Jonathan Callen wrote:
>> On 01/07/2015 12:15 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 7:57 AM, William Hubbs
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 06:49:56AM -0500
16 matches
Mail list logo
