Re: Extending libfprint
On Thursday, April 2, Benjamin D Adams wrote: I have a Lenovo T60 with a fingerprint option installed. I will help with the test if worked on. If any of you guys can track down the programming documentation, that would be a good start to having this type of device supported... --Toby.
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Friday, April 25, Chris Kuethe wrote: On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Ian McWilliam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anybody explain why is it acceptable to modify a standard for ports but not not for base? I'm going to guess that the core reason is what helps more users?: Nah, it' because it's right. There are other places where openbsd does not follow the letter of the standard/spec in order to enhance security, or interoperability, or user experience. If a user disagrees, they are welcome to use other software. I certainly won't stop them. :) --Toby.
Re: Modifying software written to a Standards document - was Re: DRM in xpdf
On Saturday, April 26, Ian McWilliam wrote: Why has the 100 character limit filenames stored in a tar archive not been modified away from its documented standard. (We all know it's 100 character limit is arcane in modern terms. Please use google and find out what gnu tar has done in this area. --Toby.
Re: Those annoying sudo changes...
On Tuesday, July 31, Marc Balmer wrote: these sudo changes are a royal pain in the ass. and totally unneeded. As one of my friends would say, Suck it up princess. :) Seriously though, Todd's the guy that does sudo, and I'm pretty sure he has good reasons for what he does in sudo development. I'm pretty sure you already had a customized sudo config, not that big a deal to change it once and move on. --Toby.
Re: simplification of the FLAVORs defined for mutt
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:43:05PM -0400, Mike Erdely wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:39:00PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: Having read steven's post, I think he has a valid point though. How about rolling the two FLAVORs into 'with_patches' if it's desirable to reduce the number of FLAVORs? Or go the other way. Maybe the default FLAVOR have the patches and create a nothing_added FLAVOR for those purists. Please don't do that. --Toby.
Re: backuppc updated port
On Saturday, November 25, Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=F6gele?= wrote: I'm struggling with one problem. On startup, BackupPC version 3 checks whether all executables that are specified in the configuration file exist. BackupPC quits if an executable is missing. Thus the current port depends on the optional packages gtar, samba, bzip2, rsync and par2cmdline. 2. We could set the path names of the optional executables to the empty string so that BackupPC doesn't look for these executables on startup. But then users would have to set the path names manually in the configuration when an optional package is installed. This is the simplest. It's a configuration file. Why make a port depend on unneeded things? And why add complexity with flavours? Just an IMHO. --Toby.
Re: databases/Makefile
On Tuesday, October 3, Joachim Schipper wrote: On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 01:29:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3 October 2006 at 12:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've read rumors that ldbm will be removed for 2.4.x... too bad tinyldap isn't a bit farther along... Ugh, I am behind the times: 2.4 already saw the removal of ldbm according to the faq-o-matic at openldap.org. Yes, I've been there too. ISTR there is some magic berkeleydb auto-repair-on-next-restart knob you can turn in DB_CONFIG... Okay I must have dreamt this because I can't find it anywhere. A BDB environment will read options from a file named DB_CONFIG in the 'home directory' of the BDB environment. See file:///usr/local/share/doc/db4/ref/env/db_config.html for details (this obviously requires the db4 package). And is there a simple, concise, and well explained list of valid options, environments, statements, goo, or goop, that you can put in such a file? Every time I've tried, I've come up short... --Toby.
Re: openldap 2.3.23 - 2.3.27
On Wednesday, October 4, Marc Balmer wrote:
it's only a small update, but I bumped the library minor versions
because the bugfixes made by the OpenLDAP team might involve some libs.
Better safe than sorry, especially with these morons.
what do you think? ok?
+ @rm -r ${DESTDIR}${SYSCONFDIR}/openldap
Will this nuke my /etc/openldap directory?
--Toby.
Re: question about OpenBSD package and announcement of new release
On Tuesday, February 21, Folkert van Heusden wrote: If a program is packaged into OpenBSD, does that mean it also has been screened for security problems? I'm sure this is covered in the FAQ somewhere, or on this list before. Furthermore I would like to announce version 3.8.6, that is the latest stable release. Quit a lot has changed since version 3.6.x. A complete changelog can be found here: http://www.vanheusden.com/multitail/changelog.html Folkert van Heusden Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com Wait a minute!? You mean you don't screen your own software for security problems? Or are you asking a general question about software that is in ports? Either way. Some of the ports people try. Some harder, others less. At times you're looking at a port that is in the thousands (if not millions) of lines of code. You're not going to have 1 (or 2) maintainers be able to screen for all security problems. In general, if/when we happen to find them, we patch them, and send them upstream. However, I'd say that using ports, while packaged/patched in what we consider the most secure and reasonable defaults, comes with no guarrantee that it is any more or less secure than what you can get elsewhere on the 'net. --Toby.
