El vie, 21-10-2011 a las 02:23 -0500, Paul Varner escribió:
> On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 23:03 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > It shouldn't, I am sure I have used this some times before and it worked
> > as expected, but I don't know when revdep-rebuild cache files are
> > removed (and then, broken pac
fredag 21 oktober 2011 15.25.54 skrev Duncan:
> Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:13:22 -0400 as excerpted:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2011 23:20:35 Duncan wrote:
> >> Magnus G suggests possibly adding PIE to amd64, which is already PIC,
> >
> > this isn't quite right. amd64 shared ob
Mike Frysinger posted on Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:13:22 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Thursday 20 October 2011 23:20:35 Duncan wrote:
>> Magnus G suggests possibly adding PIE to amd64, which is already PIC,
>
> this isn't quite right. amd64 shared objects (i.e. libraries) are PIC.
> the applications are
On Thursday 20 October 2011 23:20:35 Duncan wrote:
> Magnus G suggests possibly adding PIE to amd64, which is already PIC,
this isn't quite right. amd64 shared objects (i.e. libraries) are PIC. the
applications are not.
> Still, speaking as an ~amd64 user myself, that's certainly an acceptable
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 04:47:55PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> with the previously proposed/accepted GLEP 27 stalled, i'm looking into
> mitigating the current suckiness of enew{user,group}/egetent. the first step
> is simple: let's split these funcs out of eutils.eclass and into a dedicated
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 23:03 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> It shouldn't, I am sure I have used this some times before and it worked
> as expected, but I don't know when revdep-rebuild cache files are
> removed (and then, broken packages recalculated) :-/
>
> Any revdep-rebuild maintainer here to cl
