On Jan 16, 2016 1:30 AM, "gaffa" wrote:
>
> The firmware has a free license if you are to believe the WENCE file in
the
> kernel.
>
Ummm, just a guess but I think that would be talking about transferring
ownership and not on reverse engineering (for instance).
On Jan 14, 2016 5:11 PM, "Zlatan Todoric" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/14/2016 09:11 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> > Nearly all compact Linux computers feasible for gaming are sold
> > exclusively using NVIDIA graphics, and that company is hostile to libre
> > software.
> >
> > So I think it is very
Ok then, I stand (doubly) corrected. Thanks
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 02/10/14 17:30, shawn wilson wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure dash never got a rewrite? So this just happened to be
>> a "feature" that got ripped out of dash.
>
>
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> shawn wilson writes:
>
>> I hate the idea of dash. It's not more secure (see vmware cve for an
>> example) and I think it was more of an accident than anything else this
>> didn't hit dash too.
>
> Th
On Sep 30, 2014 7:59 PM, "Russell Stuart"
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 13:08 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > You really really should be looking at replacing any
> > ash variant with mksh. It’s not that much bigger (at
> > least if you add -DMKSH_SMALL to CPPFLAGS and build
> > with klibc or
On Sep 25, 2014 3:18 PM, "Matthias Urlichs" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Samuel Thibault:
> > Sounds crazy to me.
> >
> Definitely. This is now out in the wild; exploits which simply replace
> echo or cat-without-/bin are going to happen. :-/
>
Actually, what I've seen reported in the wild have been wget a
On Sep 25, 2014 9:36 PM, "Russ Allbery" wrote:
>
> Josselin Mouette writes:
>
> > Since I’m pretty sure we haven’t uncovered all of bash’s “features”,
> > wouldn’t it be a good opportunity to make a release goal of killing all
> > scripts with a #!/bin/bash shebang?
>
> That may be overkill, but
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:25 AM, shawn wilson wrote:
> Not sure if this is the proper list, but this is broken:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/d-i/trunk/packages/partman/partman-crypto/README?op=file
>
> Which is from the 'Documentation for hackers' link.
... here:
h
Not sure if this is the proper list, but this is broken:
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/d-i/trunk/packages/partman/partman-crypto/README?op=file
Which is from the 'Documentation for hackers' link.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
My gut reaction was that #5 or #6 are the best option (leaning to #6). However
I guess I don't understand what making something a system library effects the
license?
Andreas Metzler wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Debian ist still relying heavily on GnuTLS 2.12.x, and I do not think
>this is sustainable for
Thanks
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:22 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 07:12 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
>>> Basically, what you have to do first is getting to know how packaging
>>> in Debian works in general and what standards packages have to adhere
>&g
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:59 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> Hi Shawn!
>
> On 10/18/2013 05:54 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
>> Can someone give feadback as to anything that should be corrected in
>> this package or submit it upstream?
>
> You might want to start with
I read through the documentation and it's a bit unclear to me how to
do this - it seemed like I needed to maintain some work before being
approved to be a Maintainer but I'm not sure where to do that.
We have a PAM module that we're going to open source in a month or so
and I would like to be able
13 matches
Mail list logo
