Le 03/03/2012 08:22, Qrux a écrit :
>
> I spent a little time with jhalfs in 6.8. I had some trouble with the build
> (I'm sure it was me, or an outdated host). It's very pretty, and I might try
> a similar menuconfig-style-interface in my own stuff. Right now I just use
> 'read VAR' for my s
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:07:26PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Qrux wrote:
> >
> > *whew* I was starting to think I was the only one who'd ever
> > considered running LFS (or a very close derivative) in production.
>
> I've been doing that since 2004. And the lfs servers are running lfs.
> I'd
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:07:26PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Qrux wrote:
>>> *whew* I was starting to think I was the only one who'd ever
>>> considered running LFS (or a very close derivative) in production.
>> I've been doing that since 2004. And the lfs servers are runni
On Mar 3, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> and
> you understand the security risks, then don't let me stop you.
I appreciate the clarification of what you mean when you say "production." I
sort of assume that that's always the case: "Your computers are only as secure
as the competence o
On 3/3/12 1:11 PM, Qrux wrote:
> The security issues with production has been mentioned several times. I've
> sort of just assumed it was a friendly "caveat emptor", and filtered it out.
> But, it's now come up often enough where it seem to be implying something
> stronger than the assumption
On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 01:50:13PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 3/3/12 1:11 PM, Qrux wrote:
> > The security issues with production has been mentioned several times. I've
> > sort of just assumed it was a friendly "caveat emptor", and filtered it
> > out. But, it's now come up often enoug
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> I think the reason this comes up is because LFS is made up of a
> limited number of developers (essentially hobbyists) that don't have
> the time and resources to track down all security issues.
I think the term hobbyist as used here is somewhat misleading. Everyone
i
On 3/3/12 6:01 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>> I think the reason this comes up is because LFS is made up of a
>> limited number of developers (essentially hobbyists) that don't have
>> the time and resources to track down all security issues.
>
> I think the term hobbyist as
On 3/1/12 7:39 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> If I go back to the patch it wouldn't even be trying to
> configure-target-zlib.
The patch is good to have as a workaround, but I'd like to find out what
the issue is that's causing this. I fear it's either a problem with your
host's compiler or a bug in
