eManager Notification *
The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content.
Source mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Destination mailbox(es): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Policy: Attachment Removal
Attachment file name: your_picture.pif - application/octet-stream
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:59:01AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Anyone with the time and ability can work on a project like this without
joining the security team. Mozilla in particular is a huge amount of
work to bring up to date and so far no one has found it critical enough
relative to the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 04:58:14PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
I suspect that the problem can be with old glibc (2.2.5) but I'm not
sure. Because that I'd like to ask should I backport glibc from sarge?
There have been some changes to the way libxattr works. From memory I think
that you
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:26, Milan P. Stanic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There have been some changes to the way libxattr works. From memory I
think that you needed an extra -l option on the link command line when
compiling with old libc6. I can't remember whether it was linking the
PAM
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:04:38PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
So, the question: how can I link libattr to libselinux1?
Edit src/Makefile and add -lattr in the $(CC) line for $(LIBSO).
That is. I just rebuilt policycoreutils and pam with libselinux1
which is linked with libattr and it was
Jan Lühr wrote:
So is mozilla the forgotten package? Considering how popular mozilla is,
making it secure would be worth the effort - imho.
How many of Mozilla's security bugs which are fix during routine
upgrades are discussed publicly? Can they be backported easily?
--
Current mail
Greetings,
Am Mittwoch, 10. März 2004 17:06 schrieben Sie:
Jan Lühr wrote:
So is mozilla the forgotten package? Considering how popular mozilla is,
making it secure would be worth the effort - imho.
How many of Mozilla's security bugs which are fix during routine
upgrades are discussed
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:06:12PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Jan L?hr wrote:
So is mozilla the forgotten package? Considering how popular mozilla is,
making it secure would be worth the effort - imho.
How many of Mozilla's security bugs which are fix during routine
upgrades are
Jan Lühr wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 10. März 2004 17:06 schrieben Sie:
Jan Lühr wrote:
So is mozilla the forgotten package? Considering how popular mozilla is,
making it secure would be worth the effort - imho.
How many of Mozilla's security bugs which are fix during routine
upgrades are
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:44:11PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Hmm, has there been any Mozilla security update for woody? This looks
like a *lot* of work. Maybe it's better to take some other
distribution's Mozilla 1.4 package and ship that. 8-
That's highly unlikely to happen. It's been
Noah Meyerhans wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:44:11PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Hmm, has there been any Mozilla security update for woody? This looks
like a *lot* of work. Maybe it's better to take some other
distribution's Mozilla 1.4 package and ship that. 8-
That's highly
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 02:34:44PM -0500, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
It was, generally, a fairly painful experience, and although I did get
some patches applied (and tested!) I never felt like I made significant
progress toward fixing all the known bugs.
This was my feeling as well, applying
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:48:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Noah Meyerhans wrote:
Hi,
That's highly unlikely to happen. It's been discussed before. In fact,
at one point somebody uploaded mozilla 1.0.2 to stable-proposed-updates,
but that was rejected. Apparently, although the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:29:16PM +0100, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
That is. I just rebuilt policycoreutils and pam with libselinux1
which is linked with libattr and it was smooth.
Now I have to backport coreutils and sysvinit, huh.
Hate to reply myself, but I'd like to inform you that I
Sven Hoexter wrote:
Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to start a campaign for including
Mozilla 1.4 (plus fixes) in stable.
Well why just include 1.4 and not 1.6?
AFAIK, 1.4 is the more stable branch, and fixes are still backported to
it (at least by MandrakeSoft 8-).
--
Current mail
* Sven Hoexter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:48:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to start a campaign for
including Mozilla 1.4 (plus fixes) in stable.
Well why just include 1.4 and not 1.6? I know that the backports.org
mozilla packages are
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:22, Milan P. Stanic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:29:16PM +0100, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
That is. I just rebuilt policycoreutils and pam with libselinux1
which is linked with libattr and it was smooth.
Now I have to backport coreutils and
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 11:59:01AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Anyone with the time and ability can work on a project like this without
joining the security team. Mozilla in particular is a huge amount of
work to bring up to date and so far no one has found it critical enough
relative to the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 04:58:14PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
I suspect that the problem can be with old glibc (2.2.5) but I'm not
sure. Because that I'd like to ask should I backport glibc from sarge?
There have been some changes to the way libxattr works. From memory I think
that you
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:26, Milan P. Stanic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There have been some changes to the way libxattr works. From memory I
think that you needed an extra -l option on the link command line when
compiling with old libc6. I can't remember whether it was linking the
PAM
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:04:38PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
So, the question: how can I link libattr to libselinux1?
Edit src/Makefile and add -lattr in the $(CC) line for $(LIBSO).
That is. I just rebuilt policycoreutils and pam with libselinux1
which is linked with libattr and it was
Jan Lühr wrote:
So is mozilla the forgotten package? Considering how popular mozilla is,
making it secure would be worth the effort - imho.
How many of Mozilla's security bugs which are fix during routine
upgrades are discussed publicly? Can they be backported easily?
--
Current mail
Greetings,
Am Mittwoch, 10. März 2004 17:06 schrieben Sie:
Jan Lühr wrote:
So is mozilla the forgotten package? Considering how popular mozilla is,
making it secure would be worth the effort - imho.
How many of Mozilla's security bugs which are fix during routine
upgrades are discussed
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:06:12PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Jan L?hr wrote:
So is mozilla the forgotten package? Considering how popular mozilla is,
making it secure would be worth the effort - imho.
How many of Mozilla's security bugs which are fix during routine
upgrades are
Jan Lühr wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 10. März 2004 17:06 schrieben Sie:
Jan Lühr wrote:
So is mozilla the forgotten package? Considering how popular mozilla is,
making it secure would be worth the effort - imho.
How many of Mozilla's security bugs which are fix during routine
upgrades are
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:44:11PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Hmm, has there been any Mozilla security update for woody? This looks
like a *lot* of work. Maybe it's better to take some other
distribution's Mozilla 1.4 package and ship that. 8-
That's highly unlikely to happen. It's been
Noah Meyerhans wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 07:44:11PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Hmm, has there been any Mozilla security update for woody? This looks
like a *lot* of work. Maybe it's better to take some other
distribution's Mozilla 1.4 package and ship that. 8-
That's highly
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 02:34:44PM -0500, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
It was, generally, a fairly painful experience, and although I did get
some patches applied (and tested!) I never felt like I made significant
progress toward fixing all the known bugs.
This was my feeling as well, applying
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:48:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Noah Meyerhans wrote:
Hi,
That's highly unlikely to happen. It's been discussed before. In fact,
at one point somebody uploaded mozilla 1.0.2 to stable-proposed-updates,
but that was rejected. Apparently, although the
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:29:16PM +0100, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
That is. I just rebuilt policycoreutils and pam with libselinux1
which is linked with libattr and it was smooth.
Now I have to backport coreutils and sysvinit, huh.
Hate to reply myself, but I'd like to inform you that I
Sven Hoexter wrote:
Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to start a campaign for including
Mozilla 1.4 (plus fixes) in stable.
Well why just include 1.4 and not 1.6?
AFAIK, 1.4 is the more stable branch, and fixes are still backported to
it (at least by MandrakeSoft 8-).
--
Current mail
* Sven Hoexter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:48:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to start a campaign for
including Mozilla 1.4 (plus fixes) in stable.
Well why just include 1.4 and not 1.6? I know that the backports.org
mozilla packages are
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:22, Milan P. Stanic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 01:29:16PM +0100, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
That is. I just rebuilt policycoreutils and pam with libselinux1
which is linked with libattr and it was smooth.
Now I have to backport coreutils and
33 matches
Mail list logo
