On 05/01/17 04:08 PM, Bart?omiej Piotrowski wrote:
> On 2016-12-28 20:52, Bart?omiej Piotrowski wrote:
>> On 2016-12-12 21:51, Bart?omiej Piotrowski wrote:
>>> Let's see where we end up this time.
>> Round 2. It is apparent that majority of packagers participating in
>> discussion are for or not
On 16/09/16 03:57 PM, Daniel Micay wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 21:44 +0200, Bart?omiej Piotrowski wrote:
>> Actually, why don't raise the bar higher? SSE2 has been introduced in
>> 2001 ? that's 15 years to upgrade one's hardware and given my sad
>> experiences with computers, I find it hard to
On 07/08/14 05:44 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
XBMC in community is currently built with external FFMPEG.
For most people that works just fine, but for a small percentage of
users it is an issue.
My Question here is: Do we prefer the enduser experience or 'technical'
correctness ?
My vote goes to
There are four official packages for firefox extensions:
firefox-adblock-plus, firefox-firebug, firefox-noscript and
firefox-raismth. I have no problem with these being official packages
but they all call themselves firefox plugins instead of firefox
extensions. They are all in [community] so I
On 07/05/14 01:07 AM, Daniel Micay wrote:
Sadly, the `perf trace` command has a dependency on libaudit for a few
convenience functions. I'm curious about what people feel the best
approach would be here... adding back audit to [community] is ugly since
it's not going to work, but building it
[Including In-reply-to header so as not to break threading]
On 22/04/14 10:43 AM, Daniel Micay wrote:
2) A few years back we specifically reduced the number of kernels in our
repos to one. Then the LTS kernel appeared. Now this. The problem
with adding a non-vanilla kernel to the repos is
On 19/04/14 12:28 AM, Daniel Micay wrote:
I've already spent far more time writing these mailing list responses
than any amount of work I've put into improving security-related
issues... speaking of development resources.
Hah. I would just like to add that unofficial repositories are usually a
On 18/04/14 04:09 AM, S?bastien Luttringer wrote:
On 16/04/2014 06:09, Daniel Micay wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to bother with the
nvidia module because it would be a bit silly to mix it with grsecurity.
Why user with nvidia cards should be deprived of grsec security enhancement?
On 05/04/14 11:57 AM, rods...@gmail.com wrote:
The only two packages I think might be worth extra concern here is:
* imlib: needed by dfm, fvwm (should be possible to compile without
depending on imlib), kuickshow and tksystray.
* libdv: used by a lot of packages. gtk is listed as both
On 27/03/14 01:07 AM, tho...@archlinux.org wrote:
Am 26.03.2014 20:08, schrieb Dave Reisner:
Looks like audit is still built into our kernel. Wasn't this meant to be
reverted as well?
Forgot about that. That was pulled in by AppArmor or so.
Wasn't it pulled in by
On 27/03/14 08:24 AM, tho...@archlinux.org wrote:
Am 27.03.2014 09:52, schrieb Connor Behan:
On 27/03/14 01:07 AM, tho...@archlinux.org wrote:
Am 26.03.2014 20:08, schrieb Dave Reisner:
Looks like audit is still built into our kernel. Wasn't this meant to be
reverted as well?
Forgot about
TUs were asked over a year ago
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-August/023483.html
if any of them wanted to maintain xulrunner. I was not particularly
interested then, but now that the package in [extra] is three versions
out of date, I think we can do better.
If it's
On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote:
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of
reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for
repositories for the official packages?
One reason to prefer svn is that you can do a non-recursive
This may be a dead horse, but a few points.
On 16/07/13 07:20 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
If you wish to go against this decision (such as to support other init
systems) you need to submit a proposal here so we can discuss it first.
One could argue that having syslog-ng in [extra] supports other
On 17/07/13 04:51 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
Could we agree that going against the concerted decisions of official
packagers (as made on this list) is obviously wrong, and that you will
not do it again in the future? It'd be nice if we could all move on...
Yes, never again.
signature.asc
On 16/07/13 04:39 AM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
However, now netcfg has been readded to community in the exact same
state as the package that was originally removed:
* It does not work properly with systemd.
* There is no init system in our repositories that it works with.
* It actually re-added
On 16/07/13 04:08 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2013-07-16 10:40:24 -0700] Connor Behan:
Did you see my thread in arch-projects?
Your message there does not say why you think adding netcfg back to the
official repositories was a good idea; it merely states that you did so.
Besides, arch-projects
17 matches
Mail list logo
