On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly:
> > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager
> > > out there and therefore should n
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly:
> > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > > It's sensible really - portage is no
I'm trying to be a good gentoo netizen by nfs-sharing /usr/portage between
my three local gentoo machines, and failing :(
After weeks of fiddling, I discovered today that my problems come from
using a 32-bit machine to serve my two 64-bit NFS clients(!)
(I'll mention up front that NFSv3 works per
* walt [110804 17:26]:
> I'm trying to be a good gentoo netizen by nfs-sharing /usr/portage between
> my three local gentoo machines, and failing :(
>
> After weeks of fiddling, I discovered today that my problems come from
> using a 32-bit machine to serve my two 64-bit NFS clients(!)
>
> (I'll
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:10:25AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself
> > with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it
> > should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide?
> > (Independently of the @system sets.
I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium
I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's
not a small app to build).
Why is its code so, should I say prone to bugs, compared to
other brow
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Thanasis wrote:
> I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium
> I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's
> not a small app to build).
> Why is it
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis wrote:
> I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium
> I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's
> not a small app to build).
> Why is its
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Adam Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis wrote:
>> I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium
>> I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> At least one of the "multiple vulnerabilities" bugs linked to a Chrome
> update notice which didn't list any vulnerabilities. (Well, except a
> Flash update, which I didn't dig into)
>
>
> --
> :wq
>
>
M Flash. Now there is a nice and se
on 08/05/2011 07:23 AM Adam Carter wrote the following:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis wrote:
>> I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium
>> I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrad
>> You've made an assumption there.
>
> Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox
> that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so
> often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure with it...
The noscript firefox addon gives significant protecti
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Adam Carter wrote:
> >> You've made an assumption there.
> >
> > Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox
> > that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so
> > often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure wi
On Friday 05 Aug 2011 06:14:37 Adam Carter wrote:
> >> You've made an assumption there.
> >
> > Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox
> > that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so
> > often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure with
on 08/05/2011 08:44 AM Mick wrote the following:
> On Friday 05 Aug 2011 06:14:37 Adam Carter wrote:
>> The noscript firefox addon gives significant protection with only a
>> little inconvenience.
>
> By "little inconvenience" you mean that most webpages will not show up
> properly? These days
15 matches
Mail list logo
