-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 01/08/2015 02:23 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
On 01/07/2015 04:19 PM, Jonathan Callen wrote:
On 01/07/2015 12:15 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 7:57 AM, William Hubbs
willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 03:06:08PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Done, this packages are now up for grabs:
net-libs/libecap
Got it. Need it as a dependency for net-proxy/squid. Help is always
welcome.
--
Eray
Andrew Savchenko posted on Thu, 08 Jan 2015 04:29:42 +0300 as excerpted:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:06:08 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote:
Done, this packages are now up for grabs:
net-proxy/privoxy
I'll take them if there are no other people interested. If you are —
feel free to add yourself to
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El mié, 07-01-2015 a las 19:19 -0500, Jonathan Callen escribió:
[...]
The only reason there is a security issue with nethack (and other
games like it) on Gentoo, and only on Gentoo, is that the games team
policy requires that
El mié, 07-01-2015 a las 19:19 -0500, Jonathan Callen escribió:
[...]
The only reason there is a security issue with nethack (and other
games like it) on Gentoo, and only on Gentoo, is that the games team
policy requires that all games have permissions 0750, with group
games, and all users
Duncan posted on Thu, 08 Jan 2015 09:28:02 + as excerpted:
Andrew Savchenko posted on Thu, 08 Jan 2015 04:29:42 +0300 as excerpted:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:06:08 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote:
Done, this packages are now up for grabs:
net-proxy/privoxy
I'll take them if there are no
On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 17:47:10 -0600
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
# Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org (9 Jul 2013)
# Masked for security bug 450746, CVE-2012-6095
net-ftp/proftpd-1.3.4c
Was removed in May 20140. I've removed mask itself today.
--
Sergei
signature.asc
Description:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their
own packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off
of the arch teams.
Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down
anywhere?
Sure it is. :)
08.01.2015 20:15, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
arch teams.
Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down anywhere?
amd64/x86 are major
On 01/08/2015 12:57 PM, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
08.01.2015 20:15, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
arch teams.
Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 05:53:47AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El mié, 07-01-2015 a las 19:19 -0500, Jonathan Callen escribió:
[...]
The only reason there is a security issue with nethack (and other
games like it) on
I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
arch teams.
Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down anywhere?
I'm going to write a devmanual patch but don't want to sound like a lunatic.
Also, an informal definition on what is supposed to be appropriate
hardware and userland (e.g. clean amd64 profile) and what are keywording
best practices would be nice to have. (Alternatively a link to the
On 01/08/2015 01:42 PM, Matthias Maier wrote:
I'm going to write a devmanual patch but don't want to sound like a lunatic.
Also, an informal definition on what is supposed to be appropriate
hardware and userland (e.g. clean amd64 profile) and what are keywording
best practices would be
08.01.2015 21:12, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
On 01/08/2015 12:57 PM, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
08.01.2015 20:15, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
arch teams.
Did
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:00:16 +0300
Mikle Kolyada zlog...@gentoo.org wrote:
Major arches are amd64 and x86, nothing more. There is a bug for it
already [1]
Isn't x86 basically a dead legacy arch by now?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
16 matches
Mail list logo
