On Tuesday, 11 February 2020 at 17:53, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:00 am, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > It means that the fixes are available and can be applied to Fedora
> > package if necessary. I'm still waiting for someone to point out a
> > specific *un
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:00 am, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
It means that the fixes are available and can be applied to Fedora
package if necessary. I'm still waiting for someone to point out a
specific *unfixed* *critical* vulnerability that some of the folks
posting in this thread
On Monday, 10 February 2020 at 15:56, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > > > > As long as it builds and functions, why remove it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because it has lots of critical vulnerabilities and endangers
> > > > > end-user devices.
> > > >
> > > > Please name a couple. Nobody has provided a single
> > > > > As long as it builds and functions, why remove it?
> > > >
> > > > Because it has lots of critical vulnerabilities and endangers end-user
> > > > devices.
> > >
> > > Please name a couple. Nobody has provided a single specific case of an
> > > unfixed security vulnerability affecting gstr
On Monday, 10 February 2020 at 15:32, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Monday, 10 February 2020 at 10:07, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > On 10.02.2020 09:43, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > > > As long as it builds and functions, why remove it?
> > >
> > > Because it has lots of critical vulnerabil
> On Monday, 10 February 2020 at 10:07, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 10.02.2020 09:43, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > > As long as it builds and functions, why remove it?
> >
> > Because it has lots of critical vulnerabilities and endangers end-user
> > devices.
>
> Please name a couple. No
On Monday, 10 February 2020 at 10:07, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 10.02.2020 09:43, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > As long as it builds and functions, why remove it?
>
> Because it has lots of critical vulnerabilities and endangers end-user
> devices.
Please name a couple. Nobody has provi
On 10.02.2020 09:43, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> As long as it builds and functions, why remove it?
Because it has lots of critical vulnerabilities and endangers end-user
devices.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020, 08:44 John M. Harris Jr, wrote:
> On Sunday, February 9, 2020 3:54:51 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 5:36 PM John M. Harris Jr
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Friday, January 31, 2020 7:58:55 AM MST Peter Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Feankly if a propri
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 3:54:51 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 5:36 PM John M. Harris Jr
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Friday, January 31, 2020 7:58:55 AM MST Peter Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > Feankly if a proprietary piece of software hasn't migrated in 8+ years
> > > I
> > > woul
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 5:36 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 31, 2020 7:58:55 AM MST Peter Robinson wrote:
> > Feankly if a proprietary piece of software hasn't migrated in 8+ years I
> > would be looking for a replacement.
>
> Proprietary software works at the speed of eventuall
On Friday, January 31, 2020 7:58:55 AM MST Peter Robinson wrote:
> Feankly if a proprietary piece of software hasn't migrated in 8+ years I
> would be looking for a replacement.
Proprietary software works at the speed of eventually. This is why RHEL
maintains compat libraries going back a ridicul
> > > I'm very well aware of the above, but I'm forced to use some proprietary
> > > software that is linked against gstreamer 0.10, so I need to maintain
> > > these until the software in question gets ported to gstreamer1.
> >
> > gstreamer0.10 has not received security updates -- or security adv
On 31. 01. 20 15:01, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Friday, 31 January 2020 at 14:52, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:47 pm, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
I'm very well aware of the above, but I'm forced to use some proprietary
software that is linked again
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020, 14:53 Michael Catanzaro, wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:47 pm, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > I'm very well aware of the above, but I'm forced to use some
> > proprietary
> > software that is linked against gstreamer 0.10, so I need to maintain
> > these unt
Am 31.01.20 um 15:22 schrieb Felix Schwarz:
> (Also you should not presume that shipping gstreamer 0.10 in Fedora is a
> given, see Dominik's answer and Miro's attempt to clarify the security
> policy.)
^^^ Michael's answer of course
Felix
___
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:01 pm, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
I don't see any bugs open against these components. I can't move them
to
COPR as then RPM Fusion cannot consume them. I want to maintain them,
so
why are you trying to prevent me from doing that?
Nobody is going to file b
Am 31.01.20 um 15:06 schrieb Julen Landa Alustiza:
> We don't have any problem to retire open source packages that works because
> they don't move to python 3 for example, but at the same time we hold dead old
> libraries due to proprietary software.
>
> It looks unfair at least
The main differe
Yes, I did. Apologies.
Tom
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:41 AM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:37 am, Tom Callaway
> wrote:
> > * There are significant improvements in the gstreamer0.10 branch
> > (which is separately packaged and maintained in Fedora)
>
> You meant to write "
We don't have any problem to retire open source packages that works
because they don't move to python 3 for example, but at the same time we
hold dead old libraries due to proprietary software.
It looks unfair at least
___
devel mailing list -- devel@
On Friday, 31 January 2020 at 14:52, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:47 pm, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > I'm very well aware of the above, but I'm forced to use some proprietary
> > software that is linked against gstreamer 0.10, so I need to maintain
> > these
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:47 pm, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
I'm very well aware of the above, but I'm forced to use some
proprietary
software that is linked against gstreamer 0.10, so I need to maintain
these until the software in question gets ported to gstreamer1.
gstreamer0.10 h
Hi, Tom.
On Friday, 31 January 2020 at 14:37, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Since I've moved my last dependent package off of this old stack, I've
> retired gstreamer & gstreamer-plugins-base in rawhide (again).
Hold on. I'll take these.
> Before reviving these poor and tired packages, please consider t
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:37 am, Tom Callaway
wrote:
* There are significant improvements in the gstreamer0.10 branch
(which is separately packaged and maintained in Fedora)
You meant to write "gstreamer1", yes?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists
24 matches
Mail list logo
