Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On 07/05/2016 10:43 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 9:00:12 AM JST, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> On 7/4/16 11:26 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: >> >>> Finally, that does not dissolve the developer of providing usable, >>> substantiated, and verifiable information regarding the >>> vuln

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: gdesklets.eclass

# @DEAD # This eclass is deprecated and no longer used. It will be removed # in 30 days, #587814. # @ECLASS: gdesklets.eclass -- Best regards, Michał Górny pgpYvNG4f8qjB.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/charade

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 04:35:25 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > # Michał Górny (8 Jul 2016) > # Deprecated upstream. Replaced by dev-python/chardet. > # Removal in 30 days, #548866. > dev-python/charade I'm sorry, the subject was incorrect. It was supposed to say dev-python/charade. -- Best regards,

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 9:00:12 AM JST, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 7/4/16 11:26 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: Finally, that does not dissolve the developer of providing usable, substantiated, and verifiable information regarding the vulnerabilities. The idea that a developer gets to choose wheth

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-util/rootstrap

# Michał Górny (8 Jul 2016) # No development since 2012, upstream repository removed in Jan 2016. # No longer builds. Removal in 30 days, #582448. dev-util/rootstrap -- Best regards, Michał Górny pgpgwIiGdCmNn.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/chardet

# Michał Górny (8 Jul 2016) # Deprecated upstream. Replaced by dev-python/chardet. # Removal in 30 days, #548866. dev-python/charade -- Best regards, Michał Górny pgp_5syxEIewe.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On 7/4/16 11:26 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > Finally, that does not dissolve the developer of providing usable, > substantiated, and verifiable information regarding the > vulnerabilities. The idea that a developer gets to choose whether or > not they do so should not be considered. Anthony's ve

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On 05/07/2016 21:53, james wrote: * If you don't know the last commit before removal, juts load up the removal commit and copy the commit hash of the "Parent" link to get the commit before that Tada! Attic restored ^_~ Not bad, at first glance. Not too bad at all! Let me work with this a bit.

[gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 94 bugs

Our bug queue has 94 bugs! If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs. To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 Thanks!

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On 07/05/2016 01:17 PM, NP-Hardass wrote: On 07/05/2016 09:07 AM, james wrote: On 07/05/2016 06:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: The subject of this particular mailing list post is a little alarming and over reactive. We are not running around p

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

Rich Freeman wrote: > > do not be shy to suggest reading materials .. > Do NOT skip descriptions of blobs/trees/commits/objects/reference/etc. > If you don't understand the data model, you'll never get it. I have an intro here: http://peter.stuge.se/git-data-model //Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On 07/05/2016 09:07 AM, james wrote: > On 07/05/2016 06:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: >>> >>> The subject of this particular mailing list post is a little alarming >>> and >>> over reactive. We are not running around p.masking everyone's >>> pac

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:53 PM, james wrote: > > OK, but with the attic, you can browse by category, read descriptions to get > an idea of what is available. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with github, you > have to know the name of the packages and that is a limitation when looking > back. The att

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 2/2] eclass/toolchain-funcs: add clang version functions

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 01:08:13AM -0500, Austin English wrote > > My goal is clang support parity with gcc. If you are opposed to these > sort of checks, then why don't we deprecate and remove those functions? > I want to know why gcc deserves special treatment, either all compilers > should have

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On 07/05/2016 08:05 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: Big difference. Gentoo's tree is not hosted on github, and infra isn't going to put an attic equivalent there. Either way admittedly git makes finding deleted files a bit of a pain. However, it i

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Big difference. Gentoo's tree is not hosted on github, and infra isn't > going to put an attic equivalent there. > Either way admittedly git makes finding deleted files a bit of a pain. However, it is certainly possible: https://stackoverflow

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On 05/07/2016 15:07, james wrote: > On 07/05/2016 06:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: >>> >>> The subject of this particular mailing list post is a little alarming >>> and >>> over reactive. We are not running around p.masking everyone's >>> packag

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On 07/05/2016 06:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: The subject of this particular mailing list post is a little alarming and over reactive. We are not running around p.masking everyone's packages, but issues that have been outstanding for years oft

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > The subject of this particular mailing list post is a little alarming and > over reactive. We are not running around p.masking everyone's packages, but > issues that have been outstanding for years often result in such courses of > action.