George Prowse wrote:
I forgot to say that you could call your daughter Jennifer because you
could name her "Jen two".
George
...and a rimshot is heard fading in the distance.
Congrats, Paul! ^_^
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fin
On Saturday 08 July 2006 11:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 11:50:47 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | and i was saying in the namespaced solution you wouldnt need to
> | use.mask things because $ARCH_CPU_FEATURES would be set by users in
> | the make.conf ... if they go
On Tuesday 04 July 2006 21:54, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> can someone remind me why our arch USE flags are in an "opt-out" system
> rather than "opt-in" ?
patch attached ... no complaints, i'll merge it in a day or two :p
-mike
pgpkf9VkbsyOW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
cleanup-arch-use-mask.pa
On Friday 14 July 2006 11:09, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 14 July 2006 16:43, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > While it is a "working" solution, it isn't necessarily a sensible one.
>
> You can take over xine-lib and fix it however you prefer.
>
> As this, as well as any other idea you
On 30/06/06, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm proud to announce the arival of a future developer. His name is "Tom". He
arived last monday on 10:22 am (UTC+02). I and my wife will take care of
mentoring him to full developership ;-).
In the meantime, he's got his own album on
http:
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 08:25:45PM +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> net-wireless/wispy-tools
I'll take this one, since I have the hardware.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgpNO3jx1zHQD.pg
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 06:07:11PM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 12:50:12PM +0200, Jose Luis Rivero (YosWinK) wrote:
> > I would like to nominate kloeri (Bryan Østergaard) to the council if he has
> > enough free time and if his devrel lead position (where
> > his work is
Daniel Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The local root exploit-of-the-week would have been unable to run if our
> users systems had /proc mounted with nosuid and/or noexec
>
> It would be worthwhile considering making this a default. What are
> people's thoughts?
>
> Additional testing of this change woul
On Saturday 15 July 2006 20:25, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>As some of you already know, I will be taking a hiatus from Gentoo
>starting this weekend. While I am gone, the mobile herd is pretty much
>left without active developers. Uberlord and phreak have already
>adopted some of the m
On Saturday 15 July 2006 13:41, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 17:45 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > The local root exploit-of-the-week would have been unable to run if our
> > users systems had /proc mounted with nosuid and/or noexec
> >
> > It would be worthwhile considering making this a
On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 13:41 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 17:45 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The local root exploit-of-the-week would have been unable to run if our
> > users systems had /proc mounted with nosuid and/or noexec
> >
> > It would be worthwhile conside
Ryan Hill wrote:
> 2.95.3, 3.1.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.2, 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.4.1, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.4.6,
My bad, 3.2.2 is masked for everyone ATM.
--de.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi all,
As some of you already know, I will be taking a hiatus from Gentoo
starting this weekend. While I am gone, the mobile herd is pretty much
left without active developers. Uberlord and phreak have already
adopted some of the more critical ebuilds, but quite a few are still
"orphaned" as seen
On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 17:45 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The local root exploit-of-the-week would have been unable to run if our
> users systems had /proc mounted with nosuid and/or noexec
>
> It would be worthwhile considering making this a default. What are
> people's thoughts?
I mai
Hi,
The local root exploit-of-the-week would have been unable to run if our
users systems had /proc mounted with nosuid and/or noexec
It would be worthwhile considering making this a default. What are
people's thoughts?
Additional testing of this change would be appreciated (just ensure tha
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> Well yes, but an ebuild that dies, whatever the reason, hasn't much to
> do with interactivity.
Fine. Call it the don't-kill-the-emerge-for-silly-reasons philosophy if you
like. I personally don't prefer it, but a lot of people think it's a good idea.
> What will follow
Duncan wrote:
> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> excerpted below, on Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:24:26 -0700:
>
>>> Per-package use.mask is not here for another year and in the mean time I
>>> needed a working solution, this is it.
>> It think we can have it sooner than "another
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:54:52 +0200 "Denis Dupeyron"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 7/9/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Basically, if you're using daft CFLAGS you're on your own. Some
| > ebuilds might filter them, some ebuilds might die and some ebuilds
| > might let them throug
On 7/11/06, Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Their phrase, not mine. ;) I think the idea is you should be able to emerge -e
world and walk away and not have anything interrupt the process thus requiring
the user interact with the system.
Well yes, but an ebuild that dies, whatever the reas
On 7/9/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Basically, if you're using daft CFLAGS you're on your own. Some ebuilds
might filter them, some ebuilds might die and some ebuilds might let
them through. Developers are under no obligation to add code to save
users from their own stupidity, b
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:24:26 -0700:
>> Per-package use.mask is not here for another year and in the mean time I
>> needed a working solution, this is it.
>
> It think we can have it sooner than "another year". There are l
21 matches
Mail list logo
