* Andreas Schuldei ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [021022 23:58]:
> There are several indications that openbsd's security is more or
> less up to the level what can be achived with todays debian
> gnu/linux.
>
> The kernel code seems to have severe race conditions and the
> userspace seems to be bitten by a
There are several indications that openbsd's security is more or
less up to the level what can be achived with todays debian
gnu/linux.
The kernel code seems to have severe race conditions and the
userspace seems to be bitten by a compareable number of security
incidents as e.g. a stabel debian wi
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 04:39:21PM +0100, John Ineson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 06:07:42PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> [...]
> > Oh, and mentions of patch locations aren't ideal now. Joel's got rather a
> > lot of cleaner ones in his CVS tree,
>
> Where do I find that? I can't see any r
At present, dpkg won't build because it can't find obstack.h, which
seems to be part of glibc. Is there a patch for dpkg that I need?
isn't obstack part of libiberty?
it appears to be from my netbsd toolchain tree.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 06:07:42PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
> Oh, and mentions of patch locations aren't ideal now. Joel's got rather a
> lot of cleaner ones in his CVS tree,
Where do I find that? I can't see any reference to it in the list
archives.
At present, dpkg won't build becaus
5 matches
Mail list logo