Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 24 hour review for >= dev-libs/glib-2.28 stable news item
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > Can you link to the bug in the news item? > Hmmm, not sure how relevant the polkit vulnerability is to the news item. It's supposed to be about setting mimetype handler information; not to explain the reason why glib is going stable. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/gentoo-rsync-mirror: metadata.xml ChangeLog
On 04/26/2011 07:17 PM, Dane Smith (c1pher) wrote: c1pher 11/04/27 00:17:00 Modified: metadata.xml ChangeLog Log: app-admin/gentoo-rsync-mirror: Updated maintainer info in metadata. Hmm, I was thinking about removing this package on behalf of mirror-admins, because we haven't kept it up to date. Is it actually useful to install a few config files? -Jeremy Index: metadata.xml === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-admin/gentoo-rsync-mirror/metadata.xml,v retrieving revision 1.5 retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.5 -r1.6 --- metadata.xml2 Jun 2010 06:42:03 - 1.5 +++ metadata.xml27 Apr 2011 00:16:59 - 1.6 @@ -3,6 +3,12 @@ no-herd -maintainer-nee...@gentoo.org + c1p...@gentoo.org + Dane Smith + + + rgkm...@gmail.com + Robert Kowalski + Proxy Maintainer. CC on bugs
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 24 hour review for >= dev-libs/glib-2.28 stable news item
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Alex Alexander wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:56:06PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> You have 24 hours to comment on this news item. Sorry to put it so >> bluntly but this is required for major security bug (#364973). >> >> See attachment. > > Should be wrapped at 72 chars, but looks good otherwise, thanks :) > > >> Title: Upgrade to GLIB 2.28 >> Author: GNOME Team >> Content-Type: text/plain >> Posted: 2011-04-26 >> Revision: 1 >> News-Item-Format: 1.0 >> Display-If-Installed: > >> The way of setting default URI handlers has changed since dev-libs/glib-2.28 >> and above. If you used the GConf registry to set them before, they will now >> be ignored. >> >> If you use GNOME, you must upgrade gnome-session and gnome-control-center and >> set your default browser/mail-client again. >> >> If you don't use GNOME, you should ensure that the file >> ~/.local/share/applications/mimeapps.list has the following content: >> >> [Added Associations] >> x-scheme-handler/http=$browser_name.desktop; >> x-scheme-handler/https=$browser_name.desktop; >> x-scheme-handler/mailto=$mailclient_name.desktop; >> >> Replace $browser_name.desktop and $mailclient_name.desktop with the >> appropriate >> file from /usr/share/applications that can handle http/https/mailto URIs. >> >> Please make sure that your browsers and mail clients have been upgraded to >> the >> latest stable versions before doing all this. Can you link to the bug in the news item? > > > -- > Alex Alexander | wired > + Gentoo Linux Developer > ++ www.linuxized.com >
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: 24 hour review for >= dev-libs/glib-2.28 stable news item
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:56:06PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: > You have 24 hours to comment on this news item. Sorry to put it so > bluntly but this is required for major security bug (#364973). > > See attachment. Should be wrapped at 72 chars, but looks good otherwise, thanks :) > Title: Upgrade to GLIB 2.28 > Author: GNOME Team > Content-Type: text/plain > Posted: 2011-04-26 > Revision: 1 > News-Item-Format: 1.0 > Display-If-Installed: > The way of setting default URI handlers has changed since dev-libs/glib-2.28 > and above. If you used the GConf registry to set them before, they will now > be ignored. > > If you use GNOME, you must upgrade gnome-session and gnome-control-center and > set your default browser/mail-client again. > > If you don't use GNOME, you should ensure that the file > ~/.local/share/applications/mimeapps.list has the following content: > > [Added Associations] > x-scheme-handler/http=$browser_name.desktop; > x-scheme-handler/https=$browser_name.desktop; > x-scheme-handler/mailto=$mailclient_name.desktop; > > Replace $browser_name.desktop and $mailclient_name.desktop with the > appropriate > file from /usr/share/applications that can handle http/https/mailto URIs. > > Please make sure that your browsers and mail clients have been upgraded to > the > latest stable versions before doing all this. -- Alex Alexander | wired + Gentoo Linux Developer ++ www.linuxized.com pgpVhZPucGZtq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking boost-1.46
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:16:06PM +0400, Maxim Koltsov wrote: > Are you planning to move to modular boost? I mean, separate ebuild for > boost-filesystem, boost-spirit, etc. > Maxim. > No plans for that. There is not enough time && manpower to do it. Regards, -- Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 pgpkmnujhaVAz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking boost-1.46
Are you planning to move to modular boost? I mean, separate ebuild for boost-filesystem, boost-spirit, etc. Maxim.
[gentoo-dev] RFC: 24 hour review for >= dev-libs/glib-2.28 stable news item
You have 24 hours to comment on this news item. Sorry to put it so bluntly but this is required for major security bug (#364973). See attachment. Title: Upgrade to GLIB 2.28 Author: GNOME Team Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2011-04-26 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed:
[gentoo-dev] Unmasking boost-1.46
Good evening fellow developers, Boost-1.46 is currently masked for testing. A number of packages fail to build against this version of boost[1]. However, this package is masked for too long and now it is time to unleash it to ~arch userland. I will unmask it on 2011-05-05 so you have pretty much 10 days to fix your packages. The fix should be rather trivial. [1]: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=362853 Regards, -- Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 pgpMO0bPbtRJn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] TrueCrypt and it's lovely license
On Seg, 2011-04-25 at 17:39 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Dane Smith wrote: > > > These are all good enough reasons for me. Re-Restricted mirror and > > fetch in CVS. > > Maybe the description should be updated too. "Free open-source disk > encryption software" is misleading, when it's neither free software > nor fulfills the open source definition. > > Ulrich > What about enumerating some alternatives (dm-crypt+luks etc ..) in post install? Sometimes people are not aware of them and when they do, it is too late because no one in their sane mind (except me maybe) will migrate all the data again into another encryption format. - Angelo -- Angelo Arrifano (miknix) Developer / GPE maintainer http://www.gentoo.org/~miknix http://miknix.homelinux.com
