On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:14:40AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 23:53, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > In fact, many of the weaknesses of SSL systems as currently designed
> > could be obviated by having used OpenPGP as the basis of the system
> > rather than creating this whole PKI system
On 02/06/2012 23:53, Chad Perrin wrote:
> In fact, many of the weaknesses of SSL systems as currently designed
> could be obviated by having used OpenPGP as the basis of the system
> rather than creating this whole PKI system for the sole purpose of making
> corporate CAs seem "necessary" as imagin
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:07:03PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:34:59 +0100 Chris Rees articulated:
> >
> >It just means he hasn't bought a certificate- no less trustworthy than
> >vanilla (non-SSL) http.
>
> IMHO, if you are going to use "https" then you should have a proper SSL
>
Dear all,
In message <20120602140703.004264ea@scorpio>, Jerry
writes
IMHO, if you are going to use "https" then you should have a proper SSL
certificate. A self-signed one means virtually nothing. If the web site
operator is not going to purchase an authentic certificate they why use
SSL at
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Jerry wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:34:59 +0100
> Chris Rees articulated:
>
>>On Jun 2, 2012 5:27 PM, "Jerry" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:07:28 -0400
>>> b. f. articulated:
>>>
>>> >> > Realy no other possibility?!
>>> >>
>>> >> You need to rebuild all th
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:34:59 +0100
Chris Rees articulated:
>On Jun 2, 2012 5:27 PM, "Jerry" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:07:28 -0400
>> b. f. articulated:
>>
>> >> > Realy no other possibility?!
>> >>
>> >> You need to rebuild all the ports that install binaries that link
>> >> against libpn
On Jun 2, 2012 5:27 PM, "Jerry" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:07:28 -0400
> b. f. articulated:
>
> >> > Realy no other possibility?!
> >>
> >> You need to rebuild all the ports that install binaries that link
> >> against libpngNN.so.NN. That is actually a subset of the ports that
> >> depend
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:07:28 -0400
b. f. articulated:
>> > Realy no other possibility?!
>>
>> You need to rebuild all the ports that install binaries that link
>> against libpngNN.so.NN. That is actually a subset of the ports that
>> depend on graphics/png -- unfortunately it takes some effort to
> > Realy no other possibility?!
>
> You need to rebuild all the ports that install binaries that link
> against libpngNN.so.NN. That is actually a subset of the ports that
> depend on graphics/png -- unfortunately it takes some effort to identify
> precisely what does need rebuilding. There is t
Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 02/06/2012 07:59, Heino Tiedemann wrote:
WOW - is the realy no other posibillity for PNG than rebuild all
depended Ports?
It is al lot! it will cost me three days
Realy no other possibility?!
You need to rebuild all the ports that install binaries that link
against
On 02/06/2012 07:59, Heino Tiedemann wrote:
> WOW - is the realy no other posibillity for PNG than rebuild all
> depended Ports?
>
> It is al lot! it will cost me three days
>
>
> Realy no other possibility?!
You need to rebuild all the ports that install binaries that link
against libpngNN.so.
WOW - is the realy no other posibillity for PNG than rebuild all
depended Ports?
It is al lot! it will cost me three days
Realy no other possibility?!
Information for png-1.4.11:
Required by:
ImageMagick-6.7.7.0
Terminal-0.4.8
Thunar-1.4.0
akonadi-1.7.2
ark-4.8.3
audacious-3.2.2
audacious-plu
12 matches
Mail list logo
