Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 15:07 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
tl;dr can we turn them back off in the profile? In any scenario where
they are beneficial, there's a better place to put them.
Easily doable with lzma, if there is consensus for it.
Slightly more complex
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 15:07 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > tl;dr can we turn them back off in the profile? In any scenario where
> > they are beneficial, there's a better place to put them.
>
> Easily doable with lzma, if there is consensus for it.
>
> Slightly more complex for zstd since t
On Mon, 2024-04-08 at 01:22 +0100, Alex Boag-Munroe wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 22:09, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > What I am saying is that I want the freedom to not have things
> > pointlessly enabled on my systems, because similar problems (and worse)
> > happen all day every day. The less
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 22:09, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> What I am saying is that I want the freedom to not have things
> pointlessly enabled on my systems, because similar problems (and worse)
> happen all day every day. The less exposure I have, the better. The
> liblzma backdoor was timely becau
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 16:48 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> So, what you're basically saying, is that the best Gentoo response right
> now would be to frantically remove LZMA support everywhere? I'm sure
> that would be so much better than our response of masking vulnerable
> versions and issuing
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 08:51 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 14:35 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >
> > Uhh, I dont really remember, I think some Chinese-sounding guy asked
> > me for it... (j/k)
>
> It is remarkably bad timing. How it looks: Gentoo's response to the xz
Am Sonntag, 7. April 2024, 14:51:55 CEST schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
> On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 14:35 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> >
> > Uhh, I dont really remember, I think some Chinese-sounding guy asked
> > me for it... (j/k)
>
> It is remarkably bad timing. How it looks: Gentoo's response t
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 14:35 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> Uhh, I dont really remember, I think some Chinese-sounding guy asked
> me for it... (j/k)
It is remarkably bad timing. How it looks: Gentoo's response to the xz
incident is to have me rebuild my entire system with everything that
c
Am Sonntag, 7. April 2024, 04:03:01 CEST schrieb Michael Orlitzky:
> On Sat, 2024-04-06 at 17:06 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > so here's a small update on the state of the 23.0 profiles:
> >
>
> Why was this silently added to make.defaults for all 23.0 profiles?
>
> > #
> > Most 17.x profiles have been downgraded to "exp".
>
> I could imagine there is a reason to downgrade those back to 'exp',
> could you elaborate a bit on that?
>
> Isn't it bit strange that a 'stable' profiles gets downgraded back to
> 'exp'? Then again, I am not sure about the implications
On 06/04/2024 17.06, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Hi all,
so here's a small update on the state of the 23.0 profiles:
Thanks for the update and the work on the 23.0 profiles. :)
Most 17.x profiles have been downgraded to "exp".
I could imagine there is a reason to downgrade those back to 'ex
On Sat, 2024-04-06 at 17:06 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> so here's a small update on the state of the 23.0 profiles:
>
Why was this silently added to make.defaults for all 23.0 profiles?
> # This just makes sense nowadays, if only for distfiles...
> USE="lzma zstd"
12 matches
Mail list logo
