On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:57, Paweł Madej wrote:
I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make
another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla
you mean like the Gentoo Security bugzilla product ?
-mike
pgp1nEpXBCUUN.pgp
Description: PGP
Paweł Madej wrote:
I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make
another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla in which
there will be only bugs affected by security flaw. That bugs will have
highest priority from every other ones. And devs
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:02, Mike Frysinger napisał:
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:57, Paweł Madej wrote:
I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make
another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla
you mean like the Gentoo
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:06, David Shakaryan napisał:
Paweł Madej wrote:
I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets make
another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in bugzilla in
which there will be only bugs affected by security flaw. That
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 03:38, Paweł Madej wrote:
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:02, Mike Frysinger napisał:
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:57, Paweł Madej wrote:
I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets
make another subproject (don't know how to name it
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:52, Mike Frysinger napisał:
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 03:38, Paweł Madej wrote:
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:02, Mike Frysinger napisał:
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 02:57, Paweł Madej wrote:
I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 04:08, Paweł Madej wrote:
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:52, Mike Frysinger napisał:
we already have the products available for people to sort arch bugs
between stabilize random pkg for fun and stabilize random pkg for
security ... in fact, the bug e-mails
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 10:17, Mike Frysinger napisał:
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 04:08, Paweł Madej wrote:
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 09:52, Mike Frysinger napisał:
we already have the products available for people to sort arch bugs
between stabilize random pkg for fun
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 04:41, Roy Marples wrote:
All modules have to be built into the kernel - kldload causes kernel panics
about memory not aligned. I'm pretty sure this is gcc-4 related
most likely ... a lot of misalignment issues were found in the linux kernel
after moving to gcc-4 (in
Reposted from http://planet.gentoo.org for the devs who live in
caves^H^H^Hdon't read planet.gentoo.org.
Best regards,
Stu
--
http://www.flickr.com/groups/gentoo/
Whilst sat here this morning waiting for the NX packages to build, it
occured to me that we don't have our own group on Flickr. Bit
Stuart Herbert wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/gentoo/
My stuff is on lu-zero.deviantart.com, I don't use flikr ^^;
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:33:26 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| | What on earth are you talking about here? And why almost 6 months
| | is not enough for someone to respond on a bug with a simple
| | we'll only support newer versions
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:36:13 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this
debate? Atm, it just seems to be bouncing back and forwards between
package maintainers asking questions, and a Gentoo user filling the
void left by the
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 16:02, Stuart Herbert wrote:
3) ??
Profit
--
Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Developer (baselayout, networking)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 14:46, Steve Dibb wrote:
That does bring up an interesting question though -- at what point do you
just ignore the arch and move on so that development can continue?
I just ignore the arches these days. After all, they ignore me. dhcp clients
where modified to be
Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 10/31/06, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, security bugs are not the highest priority.
Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this
debate? Atm, it just seems to be bouncing back and forwards between
package maintainers asking
On 10/31/06, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, security bugs are not the highest priority.
Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this
debate? Atm, it just seems to be bouncing back and forwards between
package maintainers asking questions, and a Gentoo user
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:30:24 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I'm just trying to make my life as an ebuild maintainer easier. This
| means some individuals may file bugs against an old crusty version of
| a package that I maintain because $arch hasn't keyworded a newer
| version yet.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:02:46 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Leave the older versions in the tree, even though they are
insecure and possibly/probably no longer supported by package
maintainers. This keeps minority arches happy at the expense of the
larger group of package
Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
vulnerable junk in the tree for years? (Outdated ebuild A depends on
junky outdated ebuild B which depends on crappy,
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:02:46 +0100 Stuart Herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| 2) Or, remove the older versions from the tree after a suitable
| waiting period (say, 3 months for arguments sake). This will keep
| package maintainers happy, and our users (less cruft in the tree to
| rsync and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Stuart Herbert wrote:
On 10/31/06, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, security bugs are not the highest priority.
Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this
debate? Atm, it just seems to be
On 10/31/06, Stephen Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having a system that actually works is usually reckoned to be more
important than patching minor security holes on architectures that
aren't security-supported anyway. On systems that are almost never used
in production or in externally
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
| packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particularly a sec
| bug as in this case) and you haven't stablized it after five months
| then I'll
Dnia wtorek, 31 października 2006 17:04, Stephen P. Becker napisał:
[snip]
Don't dismiss his responses as noise from some random Gentoo user who has
no idea what they are talking about. You should know better then that
Stuart.
-Steve
This Random Gentoo user as you wrote says no noise but
Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] 31 października 2006 04:49 +0100 napisał:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 05:23:50PM +0200, Arfrever wrote:
In connection with latest globalization of mplayer USE flag I would like to
ask for globalizing cairo, openexr and udev USE flags. These flags are used
by
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
| packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particularly a sec
| bug as in this case) and you haven't stablized it
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:16:31 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arch team leaders set policy on this issues, not Ciaran.
Which they did a long time ago, which he got to know at that time, and
which haven't substantively changed since then. He's as well qualified
as anyone to answer,
On Tue, 2006-31-10 at 17:02 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
This leaves package maintainers in the situation that there are
'old'/'insecure'/insert preferred adjective here versions of
packages that are hanging around only because arches have fallen
behind. Package maintainers want to be able to
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 06:18:26PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
vulnerable junk in the tree for years? (Outdated ebuild A depends on
junky outdated ebuild B which depends on crappy, unsupported ebuilds C,
D and E which... )
Thats
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:23:49 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
| | packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:05:21PM +, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course it does... Lots of people can't remove outdated broken cruft
because $ebuild still depends on something since $arch has been
slacking for
Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course it does... Lots of people can't remove outdated broken cruft
because $ebuild still depends on something since $arch has been
slacking for months. Lots of people are forced to maintain
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
vulnerable junk in the tree for years? (Outdated ebuild A depends on
junky outdated ebuild B which depends on crappy, unsupported ebuilds
C, D and E
Steve Dibb wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:33:26 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| | What on earth are you talking about here? And why almost 6 months
| | is not enough for someone to respond on a bug with a simple
| | we'll only
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course it does... Lots of people can't remove outdated broken cruft
because $ebuild still depends on something since $arch has been
slacking for months. Lots of people are forced to maintain outdated
junk in this way,
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| How exactly does this affect package maintainers, apart from the
| cosmetic problems of having an old ebuild lying around? As far as I
| can see, it doesn't affect the maintenance burden,
|
| Of course it does... Lots of
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
| packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particularly a sec
| bug as in this case) and you haven't stablized it after
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| Accumulating broken old vulnerable and unsupported junk in tree
There is no accumulation. It's already there. And if packages are that
bad, perhaps you should ask yourself why they have a stable keyword at
all.
Eh, sure there won't be any accumulation of broken
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:57:01 +0100 Paweł Madej [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I'm not a dev but I suppose i got resolution for that problem. Lets
| make another subproject (don't know how to name it properly) in
| bugzilla in which there will be only bugs affected by security flaw.
| That bugs will
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:50:58 +0100 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Stephen Bennett napsal(a):
| On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:18:26 +0100
| Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| Sure I did... Could you tell me why should we accumulate broken and
| vulnerable junk in
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:50:58 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah. That's apparently much more important than not breaking users by
providing them w/ non-vulnerable, decently uptodate stuff that's not
ridden by tons of bugs. Yup. :P
You've never worked on an arch team, have you?
--
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 18:23 +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
| packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particularly a
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 06:50:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Ah. That's apparently much more important than not breaking users by
providing them w/ non-vulnerable, decently uptodate stuff that's not
ridden by tons of bugs. Yup. :P
Why do you keep trying to tell arch maintainers how to do their
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Oh well, this apparently doesn't go anywhere, slacking is just
wonderful, maintainers should just STFU and obey the almighty slacking
arches, security is the least of a concern and no priority, not
answering a on bug for half a year
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:12:58 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh well, this apparently doesn't go anywhere, slacking is just
wonderful, maintainers should just STFU and obey the almighty slacking
arches, security is the least of a concern and no priority, not
answering a on bug for
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:02 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
3) ??
Get your hands on some of the minority arch hardware and help out?
Remember that some of the teams in question are sometimes only one or
two people. In this case, a single developer does make a dramatic
difference.
--
Chris
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 19:51, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Remember that some of the teams in question are sometimes only one or
two people.
Like x86? :P
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Sound, ALSA, PAM, KDE, CJK,
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:45:02 -0800 Chris White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Alright kids, you've been emailing back and forth since 7AM my time
| in a frequence of about 5 minute intervals. Just take this motha to
| IRC already.
Please stop adding to the noise with these worthless posts. You've
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 20:06 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 19:51, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Remember that some of the teams in question are sometimes only one or
two people.
Like x86? :P
With Opfer on the team, I think we're at 5 active.
--
Chris
Fernando J. Pereda napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Oh well, this apparently doesn't go anywhere, slacking is just
wonderful, maintainers should just STFU and obey the almighty slacking
arches, security is the least of a concern and no priority, not
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 06:53:20PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:45:02 -0800 Chris White [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| Alright kids, you've been emailing back and forth since 7AM my time
| in a frequence of about 5 minute intervals. Just take this motha to
| IRC already.
Hi Chris,
On 10/31/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:02 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
3) ??
Get your hands on some of the minority arch hardware and help out?
It's a good idea. It's not an option for me, but hopefully others
will follow your advice.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:42:54PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Fernando J. Pereda napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
Oh well, this apparently doesn't go anywhere, slacking is just
wonderful, maintainers should just STFU and obey the almighty slacking
arches,
OK kids, settle down for a second and listen to your uncle Seemant.
First, enough with the insults being hurled around! We don't need
people being called slackers and dumb and stupid and whatever other
creative labels are being developed. That is absolutely and without a
doubt: non-productive.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:23:00PM -0500, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
Third, the best proposal I've seen here is for developers to get shell
accounts on alternate architectures. There's quite a few of them
floating around, and I'm pretty sure the arch teams will help you get a
shell on one of the
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:34:13 +0100 Fernando J. Pereda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:23:00PM -0500, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
| Third, the best proposal I've seen here is for developers to get
| shell accounts on alternate architectures. There's quite a few of
| them
Scale5X announcement just hit my inbox, so away we go. Scale 5X will be
taking place at:
http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1005
The Westin Los Angeles Airport from Feb. 10-11 2007 (That's a
Saturday/Sunday). I had strong plans on going, but with
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 14:36 -0800, Chris White wrote:
Scale5X announcement just hit my inbox, so away we go. Scale 5X will be
taking place at:
http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1005
The Westin Los Angeles Airport from Feb. 10-11 2007 (That's a
Peter Johanson wrote:
LA is easy for me, living in OC. Will try my hardest to make this/help
out.
-pete
Latexer... you're still dead to me for leaving NY for OC as you term
it. It pains me to have to tell you this.
--
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
Francesco Riosa ha scritto:
[...]
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149626
I'm going to die then, scheduled on 2006-11-05
If keywording without archs support is only gambling I'll go that route
[...]
Worried that this can cause a flameware I already updated the ebuild:
- it now use the
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
Ah, sorry!
Graham, the community coordinator for Scale already asked us to be
present some while back and I said 'Ya.'
I know myself, nightmorph, probably omp, perhaps spb atleast are
intending to man the booth. :)
Although I'm not completely sure yet, I am
I'm in the northern part of Orange County, so this is a rather small trip
for me to get there. Assuming all is well, I may (hopefully) be able to
attend at least one of the days! Woo!
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 16:41 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote:
Although I'm not completely sure yet, I am assuming that I should be
able to attend, as I live only ~25 miles away from LAX. Looking forward
to it. :)
Lunch at BURGER KING. Awesome. :D
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global
Peter Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 16:41 -0800, David Shakaryan wrote:
Although I'm not completely sure yet, I am assuming that I should be
able to attend, as I live only ~25 miles away from LAX. Looking forward
to it. :)
Lunch at BURGER KING. Awesome. :D
Indeed! That's the top
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Chris White wrote:
Scale5X announcement just hit my inbox, so away we go. Scale 5X will be
taking place at:
http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1005
The Westin Los Angeles Airport from Feb. 10-11 2007 (That's a
Saturday/Sunday).
66 matches
Mail list logo
