On 10/10/20, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> I predictably forgot to attach my patch when I mentioned my pending
> rewrite of the first section of the "gtroff Reference" chapter of our
> Texinfo manual, and since it was a digression anyway I thought I'd give
> it a new thread.
This patch is up to yo
On 10/8/20, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 02:38:04 +0200 Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> But even then, i don't particularly like the idea of designing
>> syntax with one specific output format in mind.
>
> I share your conservatism. I just don't see a better alternative.
>
> I think it's
Hi,
Dave Kemper wrote on Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 01:06:48PM -0500:
> I'll trawl through the tracker and see if I can find any patches whose
> summaries aren't so marked. Bugs where patches were added later may
> not have had their summary updated; the submitter not being allowed to
> alter the summ
On 10/10/20, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2020-10-10T18:21:31-0500, Dave Kemper wrote:
>> I think any open bugs that include a patch should have that patch
>> applied or rejected (either as WONTFIX or with reasons given why the
>> patch needs improvement).
>
> Can you prepare a list of these?
> The code in
>
> gnulib/lib/vasnprintf.c
>
> line 4879 puts a format string containing a %n directive into
> writeable memory and subsequently passes that memory as a first
> argument to printf(3).
>
> Using %n at all is insecure programming practice. [...]
Please contact bug-gnu...@gnu.org
Hi,
Bertrand Garrigues via wrote on Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 01:42:49AM +0200:
> I've just pushed an update of the 'gnulib' and added this point
> to the 'FOR-RELEASE' file.
A major problem with gnulib emerged just now that we should perhaps
treat as a blocker. I'm still gathering information about
