On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:51 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > And now per arch breakdowns. > > http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/ > > No offense, but that isn't exactly useful in its current form.
heh. > For > example, x86 shows *all* of the packages, even ones where it has a > non-vulnerable version stable. Yeah that's is the point of this spring cleaning round. > I guess a breakdown of which > architectures still do not have a version *higher* than the ones listed > by the GLSA stable would be necessary instead. s/necessary/'ideal for Chris'/ Feel free to fire off a request to ferringb. He is trying to be helpful here and I'm all for taking advantage of that. -- Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
