nvidia-drivers 384.90(0/384)^md (~)387.22(0/387)^md Yep, these are different slots.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 5:20 PM Jerrod Frost <piroisl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
