On Thursday 10 May 2012 15:01:06 Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 09.05.2012 15:47, schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > our glibc versions long ago stopped working with linux-2.4 due to NPTL
> > being required. further, we've long set the min kernel version to 2.6.9
> > in the ebuild
if you're not using arm, or you're using softfp, then feel free to stop
reading
i've backported the patches from upstream gcc/glibc to use the new ldso paths
for arm hardfp targets. atm, this is in glibc-2.15 and gcc-4.5.3 and
gcc-4.6.3. so if you have one of these systems where you're runnin
our glibc versions long ago stopped working with linux-2.4 due to NPTL being
required. further, we've long set the min kernel version to 2.6.9 in the
ebuild itself. so bumping it to 2.6.16 isn't a stretch.
the driving force here is that glibc upstream is looking to set the min kernel
version
On Sunday 06 May 2012 17:56:41 Michael Sterrett wrote:
> I prefer it right after IUSE which is where it currently is in skel.ebuild.
this
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Saturday 05 May 2012 13:10:10 Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> > I just installed fresh system on my pc, selected
> > 'default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop' profile and noticed ldap among
> > default USE flags. Why is that needed? I suppose there are more use
On Friday 04 May 2012 21:06:52 Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 05:58:24PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Remember, you are passing the complexity of insisting that you do not
> > want these things to the people managing the packages and trying to
> > support the system in so many different comb
On Friday 04 May 2012 15:25:58 David Leverton wrote:
> Luca Barbato wrote:
> > On 03/05/12 16:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> you need to think bigger. Chromium supports joystick inputs (which come
> >> and go) for playing games in the browser, so udev makes sense.
>
On Friday 04 May 2012 05:43:55 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> =dev-util/pkgconfig- with USE="internal-glib" in Portage. I'm
> hoping this will render the pkg-config-lite useless so we can drop it.
>
> I'm very much intrested in knowing if this matches the requirements for
> doing so, so I can decid
On Friday 04 May 2012 12:36:20 Steven J Long wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > - this is why /etc/localtime is no longer a symlink to
> > /usr/share/zoneinfo/
>
> - don't think that makes any difference to rescue situation.
no, but that isn't the driving fact
On Friday 04 May 2012 05:30:31 Jeff Horelick wrote:
> If anyone would like to help me converting random packages/categories,
> it would be GREATLY appreciated. This is difficult work and it has
> literally taken up almost all of my free time for the past 2 days or
> so, but I have well over half th
On Thursday 03 May 2012 20:49:25 Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 03/05/12 16:18, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 May 2012 17:39:30 Walter Dnes wrote:
> >> I fail to understand why a *WEB BROWSER* needs elfutils and dbus and
> >> udev as hard-coded dependancies.
> &
On Thursday 03 May 2012 17:39:30 Walter Dnes wrote:
> I think Chromium's problem is that it's based on Chrome.
you've got that wrong. Chrome is based on Chromium.
> And Google is "pulling an AOL" by trying to turn Chrome into an OS for its
> Chromebooks.
ChromeOS and Chrome are run as semi-se
On Thursday 03 May 2012 00:25:25 Naohiro Aota wrote:
> Mike Gilbert writes:
> > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> Oops, something went wrong here. Please fix your terminal/editor
> >> encoding to unicode.
> >
> > I have two questions:
> >
> > 1. Was this a repoman or ec
On Wednesday 02 May 2012 16:49:21 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 May 2012 14:04:57 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> 2. If so, do these tools need to be fixed to always generate UTF-8?
> >
> > i don't thin
On Wednesday 02 May 2012 14:04:57 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > Oops, something went wrong here. Please fix your terminal/editor encoding
> > to unicode.
>
> I have two questions:
>
> 1. Was this a repoman or echangelog generated entry?
repoman
On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:11:58 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg-
> we've got an implementation in perl (i'm not interested in), but there is
> also "pkg-config-lite" and "pkgconf". they sh
On Tuesday 01 May 2012 12:51:55 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 11:45:01AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 May 2012 11:06:42 William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:59:02AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > we already hav
On Tuesday 01 May 2012 11:45:01 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 May 2012 11:06:42 William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:59:02AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > the fact that the script leaves your system in a hard to recover state
> > > is what
On Tuesday 01 May 2012 11:06:42 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:59:02AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the fact that the script leaves your system in a hard to recover state is
> > what i'm whining about, not that udev requires devtmpfs.
>
> So w
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:03:48 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 30 April 2012 06:35:20 Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> > there is still no need to mount /proc and parse
> > /proc/mounts in order to find out whether a directory is a mount
> > point, since Busybox has a "mountpo
On Monday 30 April 2012 22:57:29 Walter Dnes wrote:
> The one thing I'm leary of is moving the actual app from /bin/busybox
> to /ginit. IANACP (I Am Not A C Programmer), let alone a developer, so
> I may be missing something. Is there an overwhelming reason to depart
> from the standard locati
On Monday 30 April 2012 14:27:29 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> +1 for creating the virtual and migrating the tree to use
> virtual/pkgconfig. although, on the otherhand, you could just use
> package.provided for thesetype of unsupported experiments (like i'm
> doing with pkgconfig-openbsd)
ok, with no
On Monday 30 April 2012 15:42:35 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 10:07 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:11:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it
> >> runs pkg- config when building.
On Monday 30 April 2012 13:16:52 Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 19:03, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i don't know what you mean by "OS functions", but the whole point is that
> > this code *cannot* execute *any* external program by default.
>
&g
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:32:35 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
> >> or that they bu
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:14:19 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 30 April 2012 02:34:18 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > i&#x
On Monday 30 April 2012 12:00:59 Rich Freeman wrote:
> doing it wrong. I don't like how Google develops Android in the dark,
> or that they bundle 1GB of third-party stuff in their Chromium source
> and distribute a favored binary-only derivative.
err, they distribute a Chromium source tarball, a
On Monday 30 April 2012 02:16:40 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:08:34 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote:
> > > I'd just like to say, i'm also an Atheme project member and I have
> > > authorisat
On Monday 30 April 2012 06:35:20 Maxim Kammerer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 05:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > this is all in busybox-1.20.0 which is now in the tree. if people want
> > to try it out before i unmask it, that'd be great.
>
> If you insist on ca
On Monday 30 April 2012 02:34:18 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i've added a new USE=sep-usr flag to busybox. when enabled, this
> > will install a static busybox at /ginit (and have the other busybox
> > pat
On Monday 30 April 2012 01:28:58 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:48:55AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > it leaves your system in a hard to recover state because you happened to
> > forget to check a filesystem option (which ironically isn't under
> >
On Monday 30 April 2012 00:31:52 William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:00:26PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > finally, since the recent udev-mount init.d script is completely brain
> > dead and refuses to execute unless devtmpfs is enabled, this code will
> > als
On Sunday 29 April 2012 18:40:00 Jeff Horelick wrote:
> On 29 April 2012 18:11, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs
> > pkg- config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.
> >
> > for our norma
i've added a new USE=sep-usr flag to busybox. when enabled, this will install
a static busybox at /ginit (and have the other busybox paths symlink to that
so there's no overhead). this new applet has a hand written set of commands
to automatically mount /dev /proc /sys /usr and seed /dev, and
On Friday 27 April 2012 13:29:54 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Since I've been configuring a couple of systems lately for remote
> access, which include configuring the serial console, I'm wondering if
> it would be a good idea to change our inittab so that the default
> (commented out) definition of
the canonical pkg-config is getting fat. it requires glib-2. it runs pkg-
config when building. glib-2 requires pkg-config. whee.
for our normal systems, this isn't a big deal. but we'd like to enable a
lighter alternative for embedded/alternative systems. as such, i'd like to
introduce a
On Friday 27 April 2012 03:30:43 Zac Medico wrote:
> On 04/26/2012 11:48 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 04/26/2012 11:28 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Friday 27 April 2012 00:43:15 Jonathan Callen wrote:
> >>> On 04/26/2012 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
On Wednesday 11 April 2012 12:10:05 Steven J Long wrote:
> William Hubbs wrote:
> > Another issue to consider is binaries that want to access things in
> > /usr/share/*. If a binary in /{bin,sbin} needs to access something in
> > /usr/share/*, you have two choices. move the binary to /usr or move t
On Friday 27 April 2012 00:43:15 Jonathan Callen wrote:
> On 04/26/2012 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful
> > feature, as soon as possible (which likely means in the next
> > EAPI?):
> >
> > * two new files in profile directories sup
On Thursday 26 April 2012 18:03:54 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> * two new files in profile directories supported, package.use.stable.mask
> and package.use.stable.force
> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
> * meaning is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.forc
On Wednesday 25 April 2012 05:27:10 Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> Like it happened with gtk-pixbuf-query-loaders, gtk-query-immodules is
> used in an unsafe way as well.
> There are several reasons that could make gtk-query-immodules fail at
> runtime (SIG*, missing sonames, etc).
>
> Using it this way
On Wednesday 25 April 2012 02:26:19 Steven J Long wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Paul Varner wrote:
> >> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> > Why are we keeping it? I move that we remove it. It's been replaced
> >> > by USE flags in metadata.xml for sev
On Tuesday 24 April 2012 12:45:22 Paul Varner wrote:
> On 04/24/12 11:21, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> >> log from #gentoo-portage: zmedico: (random idea) would
> >> it make sence to generate local.use.desc in /var/cache, or
> >>
On Tuesday 24 April 2012 10:11:44 Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> Since .cvsignore is needed either way, I'm going to do it in three
> days if there are no objections. But I'd like some feedback for the
> move of the file in /var. Opinions?
considering the server generates it and the end user never doe
On Tuesday 24 April 2012 00:18:59 Michał Górny wrote:
> It's simply better just to assume: if user wants user patches, he/she
> needs to have necessary deps installed.
if the package doesn't ever run autotools itself, i think this assumption is
fine. set AUTOTOOLS_AUTO_DEPEND=no before inherting
On Tuesday 24 April 2012 00:15:45 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:10:30 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 23 April 2012 23:45:36 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > > So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
> > > users to ap
On Monday 23 April 2012 23:45:36 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
> users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to run
> eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it unconditionally but
> sometimes users have patches which touc
On Monday 23 April 2012 15:19:31 Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:22:53PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
>
> > All users are recommended to migrate:
> >
> > # emerge -C media-libs/jpeg:0
> > # emerge -1 media-libs/libjpeg-turbo
>
> How about mentioning revdep-rebuild in the instru
On Sunday 22 April 2012 00:44:11 Steven J Long wrote:
> I can find nothing overriding it in portage, which makes sense, since in
> general one cannot know if the package in question uses gmake .LIBPATTERNS
> to link to locally-built libs. However I can't help thinking of it as
> harmful for a packa
On Friday 20 April 2012 16:06:02 Leho Kraav wrote:
> On 20.04.2012 22:59, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i just committed it since no one responded. so sync up.
> >
> >> $ EPATCH_OPTS="--ignore-whitespace" emerge -va pf-sources
> >
> > that's not
On Friday 20 April 2012 15:38:19 Leho Kraav wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:10:02 PM UTC+3, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > it isn't uncommon for people to want to force the patch (-p#) or fuzz
> > (-f#) level when applying specific patches. but it is unusual that they
>
On Thursday 19 April 2012 23:24:19 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> @@ -445,6 +473,7 @@ epatch() {
> local patch_cmd
> while [[ ${count} -lt 5 ]] ; do
> patch_cmd="${BASH_ALIASES[patch]:-patch} -p${count}
&g
no complaints, so here's the patch. precedence order is EPATCH_COMMON_OPTS
then EPATCH_OPTS then whatever has been specified on the cmdline.
so you can do:
EPATCH_OPTS="-F0"
epatch
epatch -p0
epatch
(more for highlighting precedence than a realistic use case)
-m
the openssl project has started a new trend in keeping minor versions ABI
compatible. in the past, 0.9.7 and 0.9.8 had different SONAMEs (because they
diff ABIs). but now with 1.0.1, the minor/patch versions should have the same
SONAME and ABI.
however, the new 1.0.1 ebuilds have been masked
On Wednesday 18 April 2012 22:14:54 hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
> How about unmasking it now?
file a bug for the arm team to request keywordings. we'll probably say yes.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
it isn't uncommon for people to want to force the patch (-p#) or fuzz (-f#)
level when applying specific patches. but it is unusual that they want to kill
off the extra options: -g0 -E --no-backup-if-mismatch. so i'd like to split
these off and improve the epatch API.
# Extra options to pass
On Wednesday 18 April 2012 12:59:13 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 01:35:40 -0700 Zac Medico wrote:
> > Funtoo has support for FEATURES=localpatch, which does the epatch_user
> > thing before src_prepare. I think it should really go after
> > src_prepare, in order to apply patches afte
On Tuesday 17 April 2012 09:40:22 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2012 15:36:51 kabel wrote:
> > Hello there, I just wanted to ask when an ebuild for gcc-4.7.0 will be
> > in portage tree (unkeyworded, I suppose, like 4.6.0-4.6.2 are).
>
> You can just follow the version bump request
On Sunday 15 April 2012 21:04:01 Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:55:04 +0200 Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Well, I currently manually do eix searching to check it, maybe would
> > be a way to compare eix outputs with "${CATEGORY}/${PKGNAME}" from bug
> > summaries (bugs without that naming
On Sunday 15 April 2012 04:16:41 Ryan Hill wrote:
> Is there any reason why this couldn't just be done in the package manager,
> making user patches available for all ebuilds without code changes?
i originally added it to eutils eclass and only called it in some ebuilds
because people were agains
On Thursday 12 April 2012 19:30:08 Richard Yao wrote:
> I am running Gentoo on ZFS using the kernel modules from sys-kernel/spl
> and sys-fs/zfs. If I put swap on ZFS, the kernel appears to deadlock
> when it tries to use it. I am having trouble getting a backtrace.
>
> Does anyone have any sugges
On Thursday 12 April 2012 15:53:07 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> There is consensus in the gentoo-pms mailing list that we should
> tighten the rules for the position of the EAPI assignment in ebuilds,
> namely that it should take place in the first non-blank and
> non-comment line.
>
> The devmanual al
On Tuesday 10 April 2012 15:44:05 Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 April 2012 15:35:39 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > there's one known bug (with a patch posted), so if you guys have anything
> > that'd block glibc-2.14 for stable, nows' the time to file the bugs
On Monday 02 April 2012 22:29:47 Naohiro Aota wrote:
> Pacho Ramos writes:
> >> > > Will CC cjk team then to let them know you are interested to join
> >> > > (looks like there are four devs in cjk alias...)
> >
> > Any updates on this?
>
> I didn't notice him been working to return dev, I sent
On Sunday 26 February 2012 06:34:13 Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> I've been asked by a user to remove valid SRC_URI for a package that has
> RESTRICT="fetch". The package in question requires you to go to
> upstream's webpage, sign license agreement and then you're fed with
> download link. User argues t
once glibc-2.14 starts stabilizing, i'll be moving 2.15 into unstable
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
there's one known bug (with a patch posted), so if you guys have anything
that'd block glibc-2.14 for stable, nows' the time to file the bugs (and mark
it a blocker of 370409).
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
please don't top post, and stop sending html e-mail
also, we have a GSoC list for this stuff. please see the site:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/userrel/soc/
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
follow up: have base.eclass leverage unpacker.eclass when it's available
-mike
--- base.eclass 14 Dec 2011 23:38:09 - 1.55
+++ base.eclass 5 Feb 2012 05:19:28 -
@@ -59,7 +59,11 @@ base_src_unpack() {
pushd "${WORKDIR}" > /dev/null
- [[ -n "${A}" ]] && unpack ${A}
+
On Friday 03 February 2012 11:44:42 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> mozlinguas() {
> >
> > missing eclass documentation
>
> Is it really needed for private functions? Nothing should ever call this.
needed ? no
please post it inline to make review easier
> # @MAINTAINER: mozi...@gentoo.org
> # @AUTHOR: Nirbheek Chauhan
goes on newline, not inlined
> # @DESCRIPTION: Array containing the list of language pack xpis available
text starts on the next line, not the existing line
> # @ECLASS-VARIABLE: LANG
On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack of
> maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
> maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be the first step in
> searching for a new maintainer.
here's v2
-mike
# Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/eclass/eutils.eclass,v 1.377 2012/01/03
08:45:36 jlec Exp $
# @ECLASS: unpacker.eclass
# @MAINTAINER:
# base-sys...@gentoo.org
# @BLURB: h
On Thursday 02 February 2012 03:06:46 Michał Górny wrote:
> #v+
> SRC_URI="foo-bar-baz.rar"
>
> inherit unpacker
inherit goes before SRC_URI
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wednesday 01 February 2012 18:12:02 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:55:46 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 15:51:52 Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:44:14 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > > # @
On Wednesday 01 February 2012 15:51:52 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:44:14 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > # @USAGE: [archives that we will unpack]
> > > > # @RETURN: Dependencies needed to unpack all the archives
> > > > # @DESCRIPTION:
On Wednesday 01 February 2012 15:30:16 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:05:40 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > # You have to specify the off_t size ... I have no idea how to
> > extract that # information out of the binary executable myself.
> > Basically you pass
On Tuesday 31 January 2012 19:58:32 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 01/29/2012 02:14 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 January 2012 07:26:59 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> >> I've run nbench on two amd64 systems both running the same kernel
> >> vanilla-3.2.2.
any feedback before merging this initial version ?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/399019
-mike
# Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/eclass/eutils.eclass,v 1.377 2012/01/03
08:45:36 jlec Exp $
On Monday 30 January 2012 19:39:03 »Q« wrote:
> AIUI, LINGUAS is the only variable that should affect what locale stuff
> gets installed. Is that right?
yes
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Sunday 29 January 2012 06:22:02 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> epatch_user() currently looks into / subdirectories
> of /etc/portage/patches. If the package has no revision, then PF and P
> are identical, so there's no way to specify that a patch should only
> apply to -r0.
>
> The patch below changes
On Saturday 28 January 2012 00:07:01 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:01, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > Exactly. Jason, if you want PIE across the board (with a few
> > exceptions), switch to hardened.
>
> What? Are you kidding?
>
> Again, to reiterate, *I AM NOT SUGGESTING
On Saturday 28 January 2012 07:26:59 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> I've run nbench on two amd64 systems both running the same kernel
> vanilla-3.2.2.
i don't think nbench is a good benchmark for this as it isn't really testing
what you think it's testing. it's very good at validating math support i
On Sunday 29 January 2012 00:01:50 Philip Webb wrote:
> 120128 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 January 2012 08:29:44 Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >> As talked with him, he won't be able to contribute a lot
> >> during the following months and then would be nice
>
On Saturday 28 January 2012 08:29:44 Pacho Ramos wrote:
> As talked with him, he won't be able to contribute a lot during the
> following months and then would be nice to find co-maintainers for
> his packages if possible:
> app-admin/localepurge
can probably just be dropped. packages should resp
On Friday 27 January 2012 20:49:49 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> and people have multiple times tried to convince the cdrtools author to
> change this, but without success.
> the author can be, well, ...
sure, i'm not expecting him to be anything resembling reasonable. but if we
can reduce set*id imp
On Friday 27 January 2012 20:28:04 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> > along these lines, why is cdrtools set*id ? if we have a "cdrom" group,
> > and we assign our cdroms/dvdroms to that group, then we already have
> > access control i
On Friday 27 January 2012 20:07:45 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 01/28/2012 02:41 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 27 January 2012 19:18:07 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> On 01/28/2012 02:14 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> along these lines, why is cdrtools
On Friday 27 January 2012 19:18:07 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 01/28/2012 02:14 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > along these lines, why is cdrtools set*id ? if we have a "cdrom" group,
> > and we assign our cdroms/dvdroms to that group, then we already have
> > acces
hmm, i wonder why mount.nfs is set*id. if we require everyone to use `mount`,
there's no need for `mount.nfs` to be set*id. someone want to point out
something obvious that i'm missing before i adjust the nfs-utils package ?
along these lines, why is cdrtools set*id ? if we have a "cdrom" gro
On Friday 27 January 2012 16:05:13 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 21:13, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > Again - only if we don't get a consensus here.
>
> Wait... Is anybody here *actually opposed* to not enabling PIE on *SUID
> binaries*?
he was talking system wide
consider
On Friday 27 January 2012 16:21:21 W. Trevor King wrote:
> I'm curious abotu why econf uses
>
> "${EPREFIX}"/var/lib
my understanding is that from our sampling of packages over time, it seemed
more common for upstream to expect this to be a path where they would dump
state into. so if we use
On Wednesday 07 December 2011 17:15:47 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the advantage is that it should obsolete the separate kgcc64 package for
> most people. and i think it might help out with the multilib bootstrap
> issue: you can't build multilib gcc without a multilib glibc, and c
On Friday 27 January 2012 14:39:24 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
> If the discussion on this doesn't get conclusive, how about adding the
> question to the Council's agenda?
getting the Council to vote on something without real data is premature
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally si
On Thursday 26 January 2012 11:55:54 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 06:58, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > pedantically, PIE+ASLR makes it significantly harder to exploit, not
> > impossible
> >
> > if we could get some general performance numbers t
On Friday 27 January 2012 14:02:33 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> I've just been informed that RHEL does not allow non-PIE executables. We
> really should follow suit here.
i can't emphasize how little i care what RHEL/Fedora do. so the logic of
"they do XXX therefore we should XXX" holds little sw
On Monday 23 January 2012 14:08:51 Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> So I recently published this: http://blog.zx2c4.com/749 , a local priv
> escalation. It doesn't work on Fedora because their /bin/su is compiled
> with -pie. (They don't compile gpasswd with -pie though, so they're still
> vulnerable.)
On Monday 23 January 2012 15:12:47 Francesco Riosa wrote:
> 2012/1/23 Mike Gilbert:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> >> To check for PIE,
> >>
> >> readelf -h /bin/su | grep Type
> >>
> >> If it says EXEC, no PIE. If it says DYN, yes PIE.
> >
> > I'm asking "how d
On Monday 23 January 2012 14:37:40 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno lun, 23/01/2012 alle 20.26 +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld ha scritto:
> > When ASLR is turned on, the .text section of executables compiled with
> > PIE is given a randomized base address. When ASLR is off or when PIE
> > is not us
On Saturday 21 January 2012 13:01:26 . wrote:
> Hello there!
>
> Is there a chance that Gentoo may become a free distro?
>
> I'm so unhappy with the fact that there are some non-free packages in
> the main tree.
> The main goal of the GNU project was to replace the proprietary Unix
> system. You
501 - 600 of 3334 matches
Mail list logo
