It shouldn't be the same slot. We had both drivers at one point in time.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, 4:39 PM Joost Ruis <joost.r...@sabayon.org> wrote: > Not if hey are in the same slot as latest drivers. Only option we have is > to downgrade. Personally I'd like to avoid that. > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Jerrod Frost <piroisl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> For stability can we get nvidia-drivers-384.98 back in the repo. I'm >> seeing instability (locking and getting kicked out of KDE, games crashing, >> black or non-updating screen) >> >> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:19 PM Jerrod Frost <piroisl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Samba bump, if any, could happen after release. No functional changes >>> really unless we go 4.7, but even those changes are not something a normal >>> user without a domain and controller would run into it seems. 4.7 does try >>> to enforce SMB3 usage and discourages SMB1/CIFS for security reasons. >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 1:23 PM Joost Ruis <joost.r...@sabayon.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I recently bumped nvidia-drivers for Entropy against all kernels and >>>> wasn't aware that 387.XX is actually a beta version. Just followed what was >>>> done on our overlay: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://github.com/Sabayon/sabayon-distro/commit/f79f1cf16b1c4d1be390823271710ed73bdae83c >>>> >>>> @Francesco any thoughts? >>>> >>>> I must say that I didn't have any problems with them on my gaming >>>> laptop. >>>> We hopefully have a newer zfs version available in Entropy, one that >>>> also supports the 4.14 kernel that is currently in Limbo. >>>> >>>> @Ettore should have a say about efivar 0.21 -> 31 && efibootmgr 0.12 >>>> -> 15. I don't touch them. Same goes for sys-boot/grub. >>>> >>>> No opinion about Samba here. If we wanna bump this prior to "the >>>> release" let me know and I will take care off it. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Sławomir Nizio < >>>> slawomir.ni...@sabayon.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I can comment on this one for sure: >>>>> >>>>> > Samba (not really sure what to do here. CVE-2017-15275,14746,11103, >>>>> list >>>>> > goes on an on) we need to be on 4.5.14, but that doesn't cure all the >>>>> > CVE on samba's page but switching to 4.7.2 is just switching to a >>>>> list >>>>> > of unknown vulnerabilities. Is it really beneficial to go from 4.5 to >>>>> > 4.7? at the very least we should be 4.5.14, but beyond that I'm not >>>>> sure >>>>> > how we should proceed or the effort it would take to constantly hop >>>>> as >>>>> > samba updates at a pretty fast pace.. Looking for some insight on >>>>> this >>>>> > topic. >>>>> >>>>> I'm keeping it in the overlay to fix automatic dependency on Ceph. It >>>>> was fixed in Gentoo in a new version that is not yet stable. >>>>> >>>>> I don't see benefit to switch to unstable (in Gentoo terms) one, unless >>>>> there is a reason to do otherwise, risking the usage of a less tested >>>>> (in theory) version. Also note that in case of a security issue, Gentoo >>>>> would either backport a fix to the older series, or new upstream >>>>> version >>>>> (in the same "series" or newer) should be stabilized soon enough. >>>>> >>>>> (If there is a version that has a fix on some CVE and is not listed in >>>>> Gentoo bug tracker, it's a good idea to file a bug there.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > >
