# John Helmert III (2021-11-12)
# Unfixed code execution bug, unmaintained in Gentoo.
# Removal on 2021-11-11, bugs #672352, #794511.
www-apps/websvn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
gentoo definitely should not permit fixed use for installed packages in
the 500-600 range.
500+ was for many, many years the start for users, and forcing anyone to
change decades-long use of particular uids or gods is not acceptable.
really all of 101-499,701-999,6-{nobody--} should be
>
>
> On 11 Nov 2021, at 18:40, Patrick McLean wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:58:24 -0500
> "Wolfgang E. Sanyer" wrote:
>
>> El jue, 11 de nov. de 2021 12:56 p. m., Patrick McLean
>> escribió:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:05:45 +0100
>>> Michał Górny wrote:
I'd like to add some dates
# Michał Górny (2021-11-11)
# Last release was for XFCE 4.10, back in 2013. Does not support modern
# Vala versions. No revdeps.
# Removal on 2021-12-11. Bug #823128.
xfce-extra/xfce4-vala
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 2:08 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2021, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> >> - Open part of the range 60001..65533. Not sure if all software will be
> >> happy with that.
>
> > systemd has some code that special-cases ids in the "system" range.
> > I'm not
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> - Open part of the range 60001..65533. Not sure if all software will be
>> happy with that.
> systemd has some code that special-cases ids in the "system" range.
> I'm not exactly sure what impact creating system users outside above
> SYS_UID_MAX
# John Helmert III (2021-11-11)
# Unmaintained and vulnerable.
# Removal on 2021-12-11. Bugs #735978, #794907
app-emulation/firecracker
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
El jue, 11 de nov. de 2021 1:40 p. m., Patrick McLean
escribió:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:58:24 -0500
> "Wolfgang E. Sanyer" wrote:
>
> > El jue, 11 de nov. de 2021 12:56 p. m., Patrick McLean <
> chutz...@gentoo.org>
> > escribió:
> >
> > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:05:45 +0100
> > > Michał Górny
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:55:48 -0800
Patrick McLean wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:05:45 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > I'd like to add some dates regarding 3.8 removal and 3.10 switch to
> > the implementation timeline [1].
> >
> > Unless I'm mistaken, CPython is following a yearly release
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:58:24 -0500
"Wolfgang E. Sanyer" wrote:
> El jue, 11 de nov. de 2021 12:56 p. m., Patrick McLean
> escribió:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:05:45 +0100
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > I'd like to add some dates regarding 3.8 removal and 3.10 switch to
> > > the
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 19:01:14 +0100
David Seifert wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-11-11 at 09:55 -0800, Patrick McLean wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:05:45 +0100
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > I'd like to add some dates regarding 3.8 removal and 3.10 switch to
> > > the implementation timeline [1].
> >
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 5:59 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> May I remind everybody that by QA policy allocation of UIDs and GIDs
> in the range 0..100 needs explicit approval by the QA lead:
> https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/user-group.html#pg0901
>
> I have fixed the
On 11/11/21 17:05, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to add some dates regarding 3.8 removal and 3.10 switch to
> the implementation timeline [1].
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, CPython is following a yearly release cycle these
> days. I think it would make sense to also aim for a yearly cycle
>
On Thu, 2021-11-11 at 09:55 -0800, Patrick McLean wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:05:45 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > I'd like to add some dates regarding 3.8 removal and 3.10 switch to
> > the implementation timeline [1].
> >
> > Unless I'm mistaken, CPython is following a yearly release
El jue, 11 de nov. de 2021 12:56 p. m., Patrick McLean
escribió:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:05:45 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > I'd like to add some dates regarding 3.8 removal and 3.10 switch to
> > the implementation timeline [1].
> >
> > Unless I'm mistaken, CPython is following a yearly
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 17:05:45 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> I'd like to add some dates regarding 3.8 removal and 3.10 switch to
> the implementation timeline [1].
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, CPython is following a yearly release cycle these
> days. I think it would make sense to also aim for a yearly
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 1:39 AM Sam James wrote:
> Hi,
>
> toolchain@ would appreciate if folks could keyword glibc-2.34 locally
> on non-production machines to help root out any bugs.
>
> The tracker bug is doing pretty well at this point with most remaining
> issues being in last-rited
Hi,
I'd like to add some dates regarding 3.8 removal and 3.10 switch to
the implementation timeline [1].
Unless I'm mistaken, CPython is following a yearly release cycle these
days. I think it would make sense to also aim for a yearly cycle
in Gentoo, i.e. roughly switch to the next minor
Happy to report that everything works fine with sys-libs/glibc-2.34-r1,
I have rebuilt whole @world (1300+ packages) without a single failure,
thought I did it without FEATURES=test.
I can sign off this glibc as good enough to go into ~arch.
-- Piotr.
On 11/11/2021 12.48, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021, Florian Schmaus wrote:
We could:
- Open some part of the range between 500 and 1000. For example,
500..799, which would leave 200 IDs for dynamic allocation.
+1, since I am not aware of any significant downsides doing so.
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> # getent passwd | awk -F: '{ print $3 }' | sort -g | tail -n3
> 37945
> 37946
> 65534 <-- this happens to be nobody.
> 6 up to where? 65533?
I'd say 60001..60999 for now, and increase by another 1000 when (and if)
it will become necessary.
>
Hi,
On 2021/11/11 14:10, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> In any case, 300 additional IDs may not be future proof at the rate
>> we're currently allocating them. So I wonder if we shouldn't move to
>> above 6 immediately, or alternatively, give up the whole concept.
>>
>> Ulrich
> Personally I would move
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:48:46PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> In any case, 300 additional IDs may not be future proof at the rate
> we're currently allocating them. So I wonder if we shouldn't move to
> above 6 immediately, or alternatively, give up the whole concept.
Agreed here, I'd
El jue, 11-11-2021 a las 12:48 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
> > > > > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2021, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> > > We could:
> > > - Open some part of the range between 500 and 1000. For example,
> > > 500..799, which would leave 200 IDs for dynamic allocation.
>
> > +1, since I am
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>> We could:
>> - Open some part of the range between 500 and 1000. For example,
>> 500..799, which would leave 200 IDs for dynamic allocation.
> +1, since I am not aware of any significant downsides doing so.
> Could you elaborate why the range
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 6:34 AM Florian Schmaus wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2021 11.59, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > We could:
> >
> > - Open some part of the range between 500 and 1000. For example,
> >500..799, which would leave 200 IDs for dynamic allocation.
>
> +1, since I am not aware of any
On 11.11.2021 13.34, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 11.59, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> We could:
>>
>> - Open some part of the range between 500 and 1000. For example,
>> 500..799, which would leave 200 IDs for dynamic allocation.
>
> +1, since I am not aware of any significant downsides
On 11/11/2021 11.59, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
We could:
- Open some part of the range between 500 and 1000. For example,
500..799, which would leave 200 IDs for dynamic allocation.
+1, since I am not aware of any significant downsides doing so.
Could you elaborate why the range 500-799 only
# Volkmar W. Pogatzki (2021-11-06)
# Libraries with no other consumers. Removal in 30 days.
dev-java/mina-core
dev-java/jnr-unixsocket
dev-java/jnr-enxio
Whow! I'll bump this. We depend heavily on this.
On 2021/11/10 20:08, Jakov Smolić wrote:
> # Jakov Smolić (2021-11-10)
> # Current version is outdated, uses EAPI 5, has multiple
> # bug reported. No revdeps.
> # Removal on 2021-12-10. Bug #819306.
> net-misc/clusterssh
May I remind everybody that by QA policy allocation of UIDs and GIDs
in the range 0..100 needs explicit approval by the QA lead:
https://projects.gentoo.org/qa/policy-guide/user-group.html#pg0901
I have fixed the used_free_uidgids.sh script such that it will no longer
recommend any IDs below 101.
31 matches
Mail list logo
