måndag 09 september 2013 21.00.12 skrev Ryan Hill:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 08:21:35 -0400
>
> Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > So does anyone have any objections to making -fstack-protector the
> > > default?
> > > Now is the time to speak up.
> >
> >
onsdag 11 september 2013 04.49.55 skrev Duncan:
> (Tho jer points out that the parisc arch, among others, won't work with
> that flag at all, and warns to that effect. So I guess the patch will
> etiher be ifdeffed not to apply on such archs or will be conditionally
> applied in the first pl
onsdag 11 september 2013 00.07.29 skrev Ryan Hill:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:41:34 -0400
>
> Richard Yao wrote:
> > A few thoughts:
> >
> > 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
> > the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the
> > default?
El mié, 11-09-2013 a las 11:41 +0200, Olav Vitters escribió:
[...]
> > * We maintain networkmanager and bluetooth support optional, and this
> > has been the case since 3.2 iirc even though upstream flat out refuses
> > to merge our perfectly fine patches
>
> Feel free to cc release-t...@gnome.or
[ Apologies for replying so late
I am not intending to startup the discussion regarding systemd ]
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:36:47AM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> For the record we did and still do support setups that upstream does not
> care about.
> * In the past, we had policykit/po
On 11-09-2013 10:51:22 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> > > shouldn't that be EROOT ?
> >
> > and ED in that case too
>
> Do we still use that in EAPI > 3 ?
EROOT = ROOT + EPREFIX
ED = D + EPREFIX
Unless I misunderstand your question, that means "yes, we do" to me.
Fabian
--
Fabian Gro
