Dnia 2013-09-08, o godz. 13:12:26
Michał Górny napisał(a):
> This function can be used to install service configuration templates.
> Usage:
>
> systemd_install_serviced "${FILESDIR}"/foo.service.conf
>
> or:
>
> systemd_install_serviced "${FILESDIR}"/barbaz foo.service
>
> with the latter
On 09/12/2013 11:03 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 09:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
>>> the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the defaul
On 09/07/2013 05:11 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:10:42 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
Ryan Hill wrote:
* -fstack-protector{-all}
No thank you. -fstack-protector has very limited coverage
I'd say it covers most cases where bugs can be made,
practically without a severe impact
On 09/10/2013 09:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
>> the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the default?
>
> Nothing, since the kernel build system d
On 09/11/2013 02:07 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:41:34 -0400
> Richard Yao wrote:
>
>> A few thoughts:
>>
>> 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will
>> the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the default?
>
> The kernel has
# Michał Górny (12 Sep 2013)
# All currently supported Python implementations have built-in json
# module already. This renders the virtual no longer needed. Please
# remove your dependencies on it and enjoy json out-of-the-box.
# Removal in 30 days.
virtual/python-json
--
Best regards,
Michał G
# Michał Górny (13 Sep 2013)
# Upstream decided to merge the Python 2&3 variants of pyparsing back
# into a single package. We no longer support the split variants,
# and therefore the virtual is unnecessary. Please simply depend
# on dev-python/pyparsing instead. Removal in 30 days.
# Including a
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:23:04 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> The hardened team has talked about this in IRC and our general feeling
> is that adding *just* ssp to vanilla gcc specs is okay. While there are
> some performance hits, it is generally safe and should cause little
> problems to o
