Ricardo Wurmus transcribed 1.4K bytes:
>
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
> > Leo Famulari writes:
> >
> >> The last update to libwmf was twelve years ago, in 2005. In the
> >> meantime, a large number of security issues have been discovered in this
> >> library. These bugs are fixed somewhat haphazar
Ludovic Courtès transcribed 0.9K bytes:
> Leo Famulari skribis:
>
> > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 03:06:35PM +0200, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> >> Am 27.05.2017 um 23:13 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus:
> >> > I think it would be better to remove libwmf.
> >> +1
> >
> > Something to consider is that many of our p
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:02:08AM +, ng0 wrote:
> Libreoffice is able to do that aswell. It doesn't use libwmf, right?
It looks like libreoffice has its own implementation for handling WMF
files.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Christopher Baines (2017-06-23 21:20 +0100) wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Recently I had problems with the way GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH was working with
> govuk-guix [1]. Currently, I'm using a separate directory for the
> GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH that contains symlinks to a subset of the Guile
> modules necessary for the
Mekeor Melire writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> is anyone working on Haskell updates? Looks like we have some catching
>> up to do.
>
> I'm not working on it, but I'm willing to join. How do we want to
> proceed? What's the plan? What's the strategy?
>
> We have a stackage-importer now, rig
Leo Famulari writes:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:02:08AM +, ng0 wrote:
>> Libreoffice is able to do that aswell. It doesn't use libwmf, right?
>
> It looks like libreoffice has its own implementation for handling WMF
> files.
I'm okay with removing libwmf from Guix.
Mark
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 06:52:54PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Leo Famulari writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 08:02:08AM +, ng0 wrote:
> >> Libreoffice is able to do that aswell. It doesn't use libwmf, right?
> >
> > It looks like libreoffice has its own implementation for handling WMF
Roel Janssen writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Hi Roel,
>>
>>> With the following patch to the Xorg configuration file, I have a
>>> tear-free GuixSD experience. I wonder if this is upstreameable in some
>>> way. This patch is probably too broad in effect. Can I change it so
>>> that only
Mark H Weaver writes:
> However, your proposed workaround is not a proper fix, and I don't think
> we should apply it system-wide in Guix.
Can you elaborate on why it is not a proper fix? It isn't obvious to
me.
--
Chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
