On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 11:04:52PM +0100, Ben Morrow wrote:
I was about to say 'I believe the vuxml entry for firefox is incorrect',
but I see it's been fixed. Neither 3.0.13 nor 3.5.2 are vulnerable, and
vuxml now correctly reports this.
Today security/vuxml/vuln.xml says:
affects
Quoth Harald ha...@free.fr:
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 11:04:52PM +0100, Ben Morrow wrote:
I was about to say 'I believe the vuxml entry for firefox is incorrect',
but I see it's been fixed. Neither 3.0.13 nor 3.5.2 are vulnerable, and
vuxml now correctly reports this.
Today
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 02:52:10AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
Hello Marc,
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:14:01 +0200 Harald Weis wrote:
Portmaster is unable to fetch install_flash_player_9.tar.gz and I
Anyway it's not a portmaster...
Boris, what do you mean exactly?
I use portmaster on 6
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 18:01:21 +0200 Harald Weis wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 02:52:10AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:14:01 +0200 Harald Weis wrote:
Portmaster is unable to fetch install_flash_player_9.tar.gz and I
Anyway it's not a portmaster...
Boris, what
Quoth Harald Weis ha...@free.fr:
There is a huge problem though:
I've got now two vulnerable ports, firefox3 and linux-pango.
The linux-pango case is apparently several months old.
Any idea why the linux world doesn't seem to bother?
How to persuade my user now not to use firefox, but
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 02:52:10AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:14:01 +0200 Harald Weis wrote:
Portmaster is unable to fetch install_flash_player_9.tar.gz and I
Anyway it's not a portmaster...
cannot find the file manually. Seems to have disappeared from earth.
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:18:40 +0200 Marc Fonvieille wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 02:52:10AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:14:01 +0200 Harald Weis wrote:
Portmaster is unable to fetch install_flash_player_9.tar.gz and I
Anyway it's not a portmaster...
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:00:02 +0400 Boris Samorodov wrote:
I've posted a patch to freebsd-emulation@ ML. Please, give it a try:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/2009-August/006622.html
Already committed. Please, give it a try.
--
WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam)
Research
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:38:05AM +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 03:35:00AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Does anyone know what is the status of flash9 or flash10 in RELENG_7 ?
snip
Is there a recipe for a working flas9 or flash10 operation ?
The Handbook gives a
Hello Marc,
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:14:01 +0200 Harald Weis wrote:
Portmaster is unable to fetch install_flash_player_9.tar.gz and I
Anyway it's not a portmaster...
cannot find the file manually. Seems to have disappeared from earth.
Something (system, ports, network or else) is broken:
-
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Is there a recipe for a working flas9 or flash10 operation ?
Allegedly PC-BSD ship a working Flash install, I have not tried it.
I have had similar problems and tried similar recipes. The Flash
player(s) thus embedded are not very stable, and can crash or hang with
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:55:08 +0100
From: Bruce Simpson b...@incunabulum.net
Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Is there a recipe for a working flas9 or flash10 operation ?
Allegedly PC-BSD ship a working Flash install, I have not tried it.
I have had
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:15:22PM +0200, barbara wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 10:32 +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 08:20:09AM +0200, barbara wrote:
An example of the URLs that is giving me problems is the following
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 06:42:44PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
...
i see that for 8.x you suggest using fc10, which is also something i
tried on RELENG_7 but had similar symptoms. Is there any known reason
why HEAD and RELENG_7 should be different in terms of linux_base support ?
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 08:20:09AM +0200, barbara wrote:
An example of the URLs that is giving me problems is the following
http://tv.repubblica.it/copertina/massa-colpito-da-un-detrito/35446?video
(basically all videos from that site cause the same problem). I would be
grateful
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 10:32 +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 08:20:09AM +0200, barbara wrote:
An example of the URLs that is giving me problems is the following
http://tv.repubblica.it/copertina/massa-colpito-da-un-detrito/35446?video
(basically all
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 10:32 +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 08:20:09AM +0200, barbara wrote:
An example of the URLs that is giving me problems is the following
http://tv.repubblica.it/copertina/massa-colpito-da-un-detrito/35446?video
(basically all
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 18:15 +0200, barbara wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 10:32 +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 08:20:09AM +0200, barbara wrote:
An example of the URLs that is giving me problems is the following
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:15:22PM +0200, barbara wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 10:32 +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 08:20:09AM +0200, barbara wrote:
An example of the URLs that is giving me problems is the following
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 03:35:00AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Does anyone know what is the status of flash9 or flash10 in RELENG_7 ?
Following the thread of a couple of months ago, i tried to:
- remove all linux-* ports
- set the following in /etc/make.conf
OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT=f8
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 03:35:00AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Does anyone know what is the status of flash9 or flash10 in RELENG_7 ?
Following the thread of a couple of months ago, i tried to:
- remove all linux-* ports
- set the following in /etc/make.conf
OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT=f8
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:38:05AM +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
Is there a recipe for a working flas9 or flash10 operation ?
The Handbook gives a reliable, i.e. reproductible one, recipe:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/desktop-browsers.html
6.2.3 Firefox and
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:38:05AM +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 03:35:00AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Does anyone know what is the status of flash9 or flash10 in RELENG_7 ?
Following the thread of a couple of months ago, i tried to:
- remove all linux-* ports
- set
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:55:25PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:38:05AM +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 03:35:00AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
The Handbook gives a reliable, i.e. reproductible one, recipe:
Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it writes:
i see that for 8.x you suggest using fc10
Just FYI: it is a new default for current 8.x.
--
WBR, bsam
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To
Marc Fonvieille black...@freebsd.org writes:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:55:25PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
i see that for 8.x you suggest using fc10, which is also something i
tried on RELENG_7 but had similar symptoms. Is there any known reason
why HEAD and RELENG_7 should be different in
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:36:00 +0400
Boris Samorodov b...@ipt.ru wrote:
As for the original question. I don't use flash so can't be very
helpful here. But there are reports at emulation@ ML that both
linux-f8-flashplugin10 and linux-f10-flashplugin10 work better
then flashplugin[7|9].
It
In article 20090725013500.gc62...@onelab2.iet.unipi.it you write:
Does anyone know what is the status of flash9 or flash10 in RELENG_7 ?
Following the thread of a couple of months ago, i tried to:
- remove all linux-* ports
- set the following in /etc/make.conf
OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT=f8
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:55:25 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it
Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 09:38:05AM +0200, Marc Fonvieille wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 03:35:00AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Does anyone know what is the status of flash9
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 06:42:44PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
...
i see that for 8.x you suggest using fc10, which is also something i
tried on RELENG_7 but had similar symptoms. Is there any known reason
why HEAD and RELENG_7 should be different in terms of linux_base support ?
Here is
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:13:54 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 06:42:44PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
...
i see that for 8.x you suggest using fc10, which is also something i
tried on RELENG_7 but had similar symptoms. Is there any known reason
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:31:27PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:13:54 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo ri...@iet.unipi.it
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 06:42:44PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
...
i see that for 8.x you suggest using fc10, which is also something i
tried
Does anyone know what is the status of flash9 or flash10 in RELENG_7 ?
Following the thread of a couple of months ago, i tried to:
- remove all linux-* ports
- set the following in /etc/make.conf
OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT=f8
OVERRIDE_LINUX_NONBASE_PORTS=f8
- set the following in
33 matches
Mail list logo
