On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 14:26 +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:08:10PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Heads up to nvidia users... If you use nvidia-glx and a hardened profile
> > > it's going to be package.masked
> > does it have to be that drastic? how about CONF
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 13:08 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2006 at 18:42, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > > How you you/we feel about p.masking nvidia-glx and friends in the
> > > > hardened profiles? They do nothing but cause us heartache anyway and
> > > > we are mostly powerless to fix them
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:26:58 +0300
Alex Efros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think users should decide which level of security they need. Choice
> between 'don't use hardened' or 'don't use nvidia drivers' sounds very
> undesirable.
Indeed, however I think we should be providing a hardened profil
Hi!
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:08:10PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Heads up to nvidia users... If you use nvidia-glx and a hardened profile
> > it's going to be package.masked
> does it have to be that drastic? how about CONFIG_CHECK="~PAX_NOELFRELOCS"
> in the ebuilds?
I think users shou
On 29 Jun 2006 at 18:42, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > How you you/we feel about p.masking nvidia-glx and friends in the
> > > hardened profiles? They do nothing but cause us heartache anyway and
> > > we are mostly powerless to fix them unless we are willing to spend a
> > > a lot of time reverse enginee
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 22:27 +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:19:10 -0400
> Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How you you/we feel about p.masking nvidia-glx and friends in the
> > hardened profiles? They do nothing but cause us heartache anyway and
> > we are mostly po
