Tero Grundström schreef:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Holly Bostick wrote:
>
>>
>> In this case, syncing less often wasn't an issue-- the reason I had to
>> upgrade to 1.0.6 was due to a GLSA.
>
>
>
>
> I don't find any GLSA on firefox-1.0.6. Even the official firefox release
> notes doesn't list any security fixes.
>
On the 20th, my system was listed as affected by this GLSA
GLSA 200507-14:
Mozilla Firefox: Multiple vulnerabilities
============================================================================
Synopsis: Several vulnerabilities in Mozilla Firefox allow
attacks ranging from execution of script code with
elevated privileges to information leak.
Announced on: July 15, 2005
Last revised on: July 15, 2005: 01
Affected package: www-client/mozilla-firefox-bin
Affected archs: All
Vulnerable: <1.0.5
Unaffected: >=1.0.5
However, at the time I was using 1.0.5-r1 (installed on the 19th).
I didn't look at the GLSA that clearly at the time (just saw Firefox),
so I didn't realize that I was in fact not supposed to be affected, but
glsa-check mailed me that I was.
So that explains that, if it explains it at all. glsa-check is not
perfect, apparently; perhaps it made a mistake.
>>>
>>> There's no problem with using Firefox while it is being compiled.
>>> Only as soon as it has actually been merged, it may be wise to
>>> restart it.
>>
>> Not completely true. You can use an already-opened instance of
>> Firefox--- as long as you stay within the same window.
>>
>> Open another window for any reason, and the whole thing will close down
>> (because you can't open a new instance of Firefox while Firefox is
>> compiling). So forums or database sites that open new windows to create
>> posts, or display information about an item in the database are
>> unuseable during this time.
>>
>> Rather than control my surfing, I prefer to use another browser until
>> Firefox is finished compiling.
>
>
> Erhm.. I don't know how in the world you could be seeing this kind of
> behavior while compiling firefox...
>
> Anyways, you're just so wrong here, Holly (and Benno is right). Don't you
> understand the concept of compiling? When something is being compiled
> *nothing* gets installed during that time, and so it couldn't interfere
> with your current installation. The program gets installed only after
> compiling has finished.
>
> make && make install, you know... or do you?
Y'know, Tero-- bite me. Maybe I've got a (currently unknown) system
problem that causes this behaviour only on my system, maybe I *used* see
this behaviour, created a workaround, and haven't noticed that I don't
need it anymore, maybe I'm using a different version of Portage than you
which isn't quite as neat as the one you're using.
You don't have to insult me with a strong implication that I'm stupid or
something-- certainly over an issue that neither of us control
(Portage), and certainly not over behaviour that I have clearly
documented my experience of.
Geez.
Holly
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
