On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager
out there and therefore should not be in
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Joost Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:
On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's sensible really -
I'm trying to be a good gentoo netizen by nfs-sharing /usr/portage between
my three local gentoo machines, and failing :(
After weeks of fiddling, I discovered today that my problems come from
using a 32-bit machine to serve my two 64-bit NFS clients(!)
(I'll mention up front that NFSv3 works
* walt w41...@gmail.com [110804 17:26]:
I'm trying to be a good gentoo netizen by nfs-sharing /usr/portage between
my three local gentoo machines, and failing :(
After weeks of fiddling, I discovered today that my problems come from
using a 32-bit machine to serve my two 64-bit NFS
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:10:25AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself
with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it
should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide?
(Independently of the @system sets.)
I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium
I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's
not a small app to build).
Why is its code so, should I say prone to bugs, compared to
other
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Thanasis thana...@asyr.hopto.org wrote:
I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium
I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's
not a small app to
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis thana...@asyr.hopto.org wrote:
I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium
I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's
not a small app to
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis thana...@asyr.hopto.org wrote:
I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium
I suppose this is
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
At least one of the multiple vulnerabilities bugs linked to a Chrome
update notice which didn't list any vulnerabilities. (Well, except a
Flash update, which I didn't dig into)
--
:wq
M Flash. Now there is a nice
on 08/05/2011 07:23 AM Adam Carter wrote the following:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis thana...@asyr.hopto.org wrote:
I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium
I suppose this is why we see so
You've made an assumption there.
Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox
that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so
often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure with it...
The noscript firefox addon gives significant protection
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote:
You've made an assumption there.
Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox
that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so
often, I guess we should *not* feel
On Friday 05 Aug 2011 06:14:37 Adam Carter wrote:
You've made an assumption there.
Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox
that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so
often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure with it...
14 matches
Mail list logo
