Re: [gentoo-dev] SSL-Certificates and CAcert
On Friday 28 September 2007 01:10:48 Robin H. Johnson wrote: Is there a reason that my Godaddy suggestion in the bug isn't being considered? Regardless of what you may think of them as a company, they offer the same free type of certificate to open source projects just like cacert, and with what looks to be considerable less overhead. I understand that cacert is more open sourcy than godaddy, but if they're as much of a roadblock as the Trustees are in this case, maybe going that route would enable us to move forward? See my comment #14, regarding regenerating the certs [1] each time the set of SSL vhosts on a box changes. For mail services, this isn't really an issue, but for web services it's a big one. Wildcards only work in Mozilla, and nowhere else [2]. [1] http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/VhostTaskForce#head-7236c4e2c9932ef42056b3ff6d3 67053081887de [2] http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/WildcardCertificates Wildcard certs work with all browsers, even wget and lynx, and one wildcard will cover anything *.gentoo.org, but not *.*.gentoo.org. No regeneration necessary. That wiki page I believe only talks about *'s in different places, which is not supported. I personally use the same wildcard cert for webmail via apache, imap/pop via courier, and SMTP. -- Mike Williams -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] bugs and forums
Hey, Just wondering, does anyone know what's up with bugs.g.o and forums.g.o? Seem to be up and down, left, right, and centre. Not often I get to post anything useful to bugs.g.o, and now that I do, I can't :) Ta forums is running now... -- Mike Williams -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86
On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote:
This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon. If any of the
archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
give us a heads up on what to expect, that would be great. Only thing I
see as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly
upgrade your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that
have a system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they
get linking errors.
Shouldn't this be a profile thing? i.e. 200{4,5}.X stays at 3.3.X, 2006.X- go
to 3.4.X
--
Mike Williams
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ERROR: gnome-base/bonobo-1.0.22 failed.
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 16:56, Dale wrote: !!! Please attach the config.log to your bug report: !!! /var/tmp/portage/bonobo-1.0.22/work/bonobo-1.0.22/config.log -- Mike Williams -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GLEP 42 (Was: Getting Important Updates To Users)
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 19:32, Stuart Herbert wrote: 1) Why post to forums.g.o if its on www, why would one check forums instead of www. Redundancy - to get the attention of those folks that for whatever The users I've spoken to about our news situation have expressly stated that one of their concerns is that there are *too many* places to check for news. They're not looking for us to scatter news across many mediums - they want one place to go. This user would prefer important news in as many places as possible. Yes, scattering different types of news about the tree in different places is stupid, having the same news in 4 different places might be mildly annoying if you see it 4 times, but if 4 times as many users see it all the better. Redundancy is a Good Thing. -- Mike Williams -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] modular X - 7.0 RC1
On Thursday 20 October 2005 14:26, Dan Armak wrote: To keep the current behaviour, the kde metaebuild (and gnome and the other WMs) would have to depend on xorg-x11, which strictly speaking is unnecessary. Opinions? How can we educate the users to manually 'emerge xorg-x11'? Personally I'm in favor of updating the docs, making a big announcement on all channels, and preparing a nice bug to close duplicates against. We'll also need to educate them about xorg-x11 not installing fonts any longer. The way I understood your metabuilds.txt, 'emerge xorg-x11 kde' would result in an unusable system without any fonts at all... As a fairly average joe user when it comes to all things X, I feel it would be best to keep the current X USE flag behaviour, i.e. a full working Xserver. The same goes for xorg-x11, or virtual/x11. KDE needs some X libs, so obviously must always depend on them, but having the X USE set should call in a complete working server. For packages that can work with, or without X, and should give the option to have a full server, or not, perhaps a new USE flag is needed? Xlibs? -- Mike Williams -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual
On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:11, Philip Webb wrote: Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs got a big red warning. It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual: is this an oversight or is there a reason behind it ? I would have assumed that Udev would now be the required device manager. You installed using an earlier profile, obviously, when devfs was the default for virtual/dev-manager (otherwise you wouldn't have it installed). Because the profile depends on a virtual any attempt to remove a package providing that virtual will throw up the warning. Exactly the same symptom you're seeing with editors on -user. -- Mike Williams -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
