On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:44:44 +0100
Tony Vroon wrote:
> We have similar workflow issues with this, and as a consequence our
> software team has asked me to step up. I can present an at least vaguely
> maintainable ebuild on:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/572824
>
> I am aware that some of the patches
On 06/06/17 10:11, Kent Fredric wrote:
> I'm sort of hoping that we can delay at least until it becomes viable
> to use newer stuff on travis.
Good afternoon Kent,
We have similar workflow issues with this, and as a consequence our
software team has asked me to step up. I can present an at least
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:38:26 +0200
Hans de Graaff wrote:
> I've updated the proposed timeframe in the mask to 90 days.
That's reasonable.
Thanks :)
pgpFU7aP7HlSq.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 21:11 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> Just 30 days to overhaul things on top of other work is a serious
> problem for anyone with time issues already.
I've updated the proposed timeframe in the mask to 90 days.
> ( I only consider my own use of this "amateur" at best right n
On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 07:28:00 +0200
Hans de Graaff wrote:
> What kind of timeframe do you propose?
>
> > 1.5 Months from "We're not working on this" to "its dead jim, kill
> > it from orbit"
> > is a bit fast for anything entrenched.
>
> The problems were there a lot longer so for me at least
El lun, 05-06-2017 a las 13:42 -0400, Michael Orlitzky escribió:
> On 06/05/2017 07:06 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 09:11:27 +0200
> > Hans de Graaff wrote:
> >
> > > # Hans de Graaff (05 Jun 2017)
> > > # Bundles obsolete and vulnerable webkit version.
> > > # Upstream has st
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 18:38 +0700, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
> >
> Although, in-tree version is obsolete anyway, and upstream made few
> next
> releases with brain-exploding buildsystem, so I just pushed
> version to my
> "public sandbox" overlay, and happy with it on the projects th
On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 23:06 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
> Can phantomjs be simply masked for a longer period until the
> development
> world has had an opportunity to catch up?
What kind of timeframe do you propose?
> 1.5 Months from "We're not working on this" to "its dead jim, kill it
> from
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 13:42:50 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Hans was
> attempting to fix it, but now that upstream is dead, it will remain
> insecure forever.
IME, as long as that's clear from the pmask, and its clear what those
security vectors are, as long as an end user makes sure those vecto
On 06/05/2017 07:06 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 09:11:27 +0200
> Hans de Graaff wrote:
>
>> # Hans de Graaff (05 Jun 2017)
>> # Bundles obsolete and vulnerable webkit version.
>> # Upstream has stopped development and recommends using
>> # headless mode in >=www-client/chromium
> Can phantomjs be simply masked for a longer period until the development
> world has had an opportunity to catch up?
Just exactly what I thought.
Although, in-tree version is obsolete anyway, and upstream made few next
releases with brain-exploding buildsystem, so I just pushed version to
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 09:11:27 +0200
Hans de Graaff wrote:
> # Hans de Graaff (05 Jun 2017)
> # Bundles obsolete and vulnerable webkit version.
> # Upstream has stopped development and recommends using
> # headless mode in >=www-client/chromium-59.
> # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #589994.
>
# Hans de Graaff (05 Jun 2017)
# Bundles obsolete and vulnerable webkit version.
# Upstream has stopped development and recommends using
# headless mode in >=www-client/chromium-59.
# Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug #589994.
www-client/phantomjs
dev-ruby/poltergeist
signature.asc
Description:
13 matches
Mail list logo