On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:41:16 -0500
"J. Bruce Fields" wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 12:43:14AM +0400, Pavel Shilovsky wrote:
> > The problem is the possibility of denial-of-service attacks here. We
> > can try to prevent them by:
> > 1) specifying an extra security bit on the file that indicate
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 11:52 -0800, Juan Lang wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Hans Leidekker
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 14:52 +0100, Jacek Caban wrote:
> > > On 12/11/12 09:45, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> >
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 11:52 -0800, Juan Lang wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 14:52 +0100, Jacek Caban wrote:
> > On 12/11/12 09:45, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> > > https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23300 is a te
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 14:52 +0100, Jacek Caban wrote:
> > On 12/11/12 09:45, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> > > https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23300 is a test which
> shows that
> > > revocation checks fail for the certificate on outl
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Max TenEyck Woodbury
wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 10:46 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>>
>> On 11 December 2012 16:05, wrote:
>>>
>>> Cost to users:
>>>
>>> Users with a working ALSA device "default" should experience no
>>> drawback, only benefits. I believe this is the v
On 12/11/2012 10:46 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
On 11 December 2012 16:05, wrote:
Cost to users:
Users with a working ALSA device "default" should experience no
drawback, only benefits. I believe this is the vast majority of users.
Users that edit their ~/.asoundrc to define other devices with
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> On 11 December 2012 04:16, Austin English wrote:
>> + * Copyright 2012 The Wine Project
> I don't think that kind of thing really makes sense unless you also
> define "The Wine Project" as some kind of legal entity somewhere.
It's also done
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Francois Gouget writes:
>
> > @@ -88,12 +88,11 @@ $JobArchiveDays = 0;
> > if (!$::BuildEnv)
> > {
> >$::BuildEnv = 0;
> > - eval 'require "$::RootDir/ConfigLocal.pl";';
> > + eval 'require "$::RootDir/lib/WineTestBot/ConfigLocal.pl"';
[..
On 11 December 2012 16:05, wrote:
> Cost to users:
>
> Users with a working ALSA device "default" should experience no
> drawback, only benefits. I believe this is the vast majority of users.
>
> Users that edit their ~/.asoundrc to define other devices without
> simultaneously overriding !defau
Hi,
Here's my proposal:
winealsa shall stop enumerating ALSA devices. By default, it should
solely provide access to ALSA's default device adequately named "default".
The code that currently scans the registry
Software\Wine\Drivers\winealsa.drv\devices=... shall remain in place,
allowing a comm
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 14:52 +0100, Jacek Caban wrote:
> On 12/11/12 09:45, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> > https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23300 is a test which shows
> > that
> > revocation checks fail for the certificate on outlook.com when passed
> > straight
> > to CertVerifyRevocation
Hi Hans,
On 12/11/12 09:45, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> https://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=23300 is a test which shows that
> revocation checks fail for the certificate on outlook.com when passed straight
> to CertVerifyRevocation. The reason is that a CRL link specified in the
> certificate
On 11 December 2012 04:16, Austin English wrote:
> + * Copyright 2012 The Wine Project
I don't think that kind of thing really makes sense unless you also
define "The Wine Project" as some kind of legal entity somewhere.
> +TRACE("(0x%p, %d, %p)\n", hinstDLL, fdwReason, lpvReserved);
0x%p is
Francois Gouget writes:
> @@ -88,12 +88,11 @@ $JobArchiveDays = 0;
> if (!$::BuildEnv)
> {
>$::BuildEnv = 0;
> - eval 'require "$::RootDir/ConfigLocal.pl";';
> + eval 'require "$::RootDir/lib/WineTestBot/ConfigLocal.pl"';
>if ($@)
>{
> -print STDERR "Please create a valid $::R
On 12/11/2012 10:20 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/2012 07:37 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
>>> This prevents the undefined behavior (null pointer dereference)
>>> diagnostics (clang with ubsan checks for example).
>> This is a bug in clang. There is no null pointe
Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 07:37 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
> > This prevents the undefined behavior (null pointer dereference)
> > diagnostics (clang with ubsan checks for example).
> This is a bug in clang. There is no null pointer dereference.
> Afair gcc tried to pull this trick to
16 matches
Mail list logo
