[gentoo-dev] Portage to die on sure-enough _FORTIFY_SOURCE overflows

2010-09-28 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Hi all, since the last time I asked Zac about this it came back to bite me[1] this time I'm going to send the announce to the list first, and if nobody can actually come up with a good reason not to, I'm going to ask Zac tomorrow to re-enable the feature. What is this about? Portage already

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage to die on sure-enough _FORTIFY_SOURCE overflows

2010-09-28 Thread Petteri Räty
On 09/28/2010 12:43 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: So if you want to have your say, gentoo-qa is there for that. You should not cross post like this. Following the recent discussion the only list allowing cross posting is gentoo-dev-announce. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going inactive

2010-09-28 Thread Tony Chainsaw Vroon
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 19:53 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: I've been too busy with other things to work on Gentoo for quite some time and this isn't going to change now that I've just picked up new study and work commitments. You will be missed Daniel. It was always pleasant working with you.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage to die on sure-enough _FORTIFY_SOURCE overflows

2010-09-28 Thread Alec Warner
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, since the last time I asked Zac about this it came back to bite me[1] this time I'm going to send the announce to the list first, and if nobody can actually come up with a good reason not to, I'm going to

Re: [gentoo-qa] Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage to die on sure-enough _FORTIFY_SOURCE overflows

2010-09-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 15:33:10 Alec Warner wrote: On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: since the last time I asked Zac about this it came back to bite me[1] this time I'm going to send the announce to the list first, and if nobody can actually come up with a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: latex packages achemso, revtex

2010-09-28 Thread Alexis Ballier
Hi, you did it the correct way but that's what happens when you're alone in a team and are moving without reliable internet connection then emails other stuff start to pile up :/ I'm sorry, I did not want to be pushy in any way... :| No problem at all; had I set my .away you could have

Re: [gentoo-qa] Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage to die on sure-enough _FORTIFY_SOURCE overflows

2010-09-28 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Il giorno mar, 28/09/2010 alle 12.33 -0700, Alec Warner ha scritto: Its not clear to me what your purpose is. It is likely that many developers will be unable to do 1. Does that concern you? Should developers ask QA for help on packages? Fixing the package is the solution, it's usually

Re: [gentoo-dev] Going inactive

2010-09-28 Thread Theo Chatzimichos
On Monday 27 September 2010 21:53:18 Daniel Drake wrote: Hi, I've been too busy with other things to work on Gentoo for quite some time and this isn't going to change now that I've just picked up new study and work commitments. So I'm gonna drop out of the IRC rooms and stop checking this

[gentoo-dev] Re: Portage to die on sure-enough _FORTIFY_SOURCE overflows

2010-09-28 Thread Ryan Hill
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:43:28 +0200 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@gmail.com wrote: since the last time I asked Zac about this it came back to bite me[1] this time I'm going to send the announce to the list first, and if nobody can actually come up with a good reason not to, I'm going to ask Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage to die on sure-enough _FORTIFY_SOURCE overflows

2010-09-28 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 20:33:52 Ryan Hill wrote: On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:43:28 +0200 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: since the last time I asked Zac about this it came back to bite me[1] this time I'm going to send the announce to the list first, and if nobody can actually come up with a

[gentoo-dev] Re: Portage to die on sure-enough _FORTIFY_SOURCE overflows

2010-09-28 Thread Ryan Hill
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:25:38 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: Something I forgot to ask before: are the 'always overflow' warnings new w/ GCC 4.5 / glibc 2.12? If they're new w/ 4.5 then we don't have a problem. the fortify warnings typically come from glibc, not gcc. i