| 1 |
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 13:08 +0200, pageexec@××××××××.hu wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 29 Jun 2006 at 18:42, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > > How you you/we feel about p.masking nvidia-glx and friends in the |
| 4 |
> > > > hardened profiles? They do nothing but cause us heartache anyway and |
| 5 |
> > > > we are mostly powerless to fix them unless we are willing to spend a |
| 6 |
> > > > a lot of time reverse engineering the object code. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> could someone talk to upstream and make them aware of the textrels? |
| 9 |
> i recall that 1-2 years ago tseng managed to ask them about providing |
| 10 |
> a modular driver (which they didn't in the end), but at least they |
| 11 |
> listened... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > Heads up to nvidia users... If you use nvidia-glx and a hardened profile |
| 14 |
> > it's going to be package.masked |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> does it have to be that drastic? how about CONFIG_CHECK="~PAX_NOELFRELOCS" |
| 17 |
> in the ebuilds? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The problem with the nvidia-glx is that it's libGL.so causes it's own |
| 20 |
problems to be propagated into nearly dozens of other applications. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list |
Archives