| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:51 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> > And now per arch breakdowns. |
| 4 |
> > http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/ |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> No offense, but that isn't exactly useful in its current form. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
heh. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> For |
| 11 |
> example, x86 shows *all* of the packages, even ones where it has a |
| 12 |
> non-vulnerable version stable. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yeah that's is the point of this spring cleaning round. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I guess a breakdown of which |
| 17 |
> architectures still do not have a version *higher* than the ones listed |
| 18 |
> by the GLSA stable would be necessary instead. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
s/necessary/'ideal for Chris'/ |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Feel free to fire off a request to ferringb. |
| 23 |
He is trying to be helpful here and I'm all for taking |
| 24 |
advantage of that. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 29 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives