Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: "W.Kenworthy" <billk@×××××××××.au>
To: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] org-x11 GLSA 200509-07. Is bug #96053 fixed in -r3? (black icons)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:22:40
Message-Id: 1126667838.23855.80.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-security] org-x11 GLSA 200509-07. Is bug #96053 fixed in -r3? (black icons) by
I do do that at times, but in this case the quickest was to start the
emerge (glsa-check -f package) then CTRL-Z it after the unpack, but
before the patch stage (easy because there are so many patches), delete
patch 9914*, foreground (fg) the job and it works.

My reason for starting this thread was not to flame, but try and add
weight to others who have added to the original, long standing bug about
this to get this patch formally deleted from the stable branch as its
manifestly not needed for the majority of users.  The very small group
who do need this patch are using gcc4 which is hardly mainstream.  Even
though the comment was this patch was applied upstream, its actually
physically applied by the ebuild, so why cant the ebuild just not apply


On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 21:56 -0500, Barry.SCHWARTZ@×××××××××××××.org
> "W.Kenworthy" <billk@×××××××××.au> skribis: > > 4. Everybodies requirements are different: unless devs get feedback on > > whats important to users, how would they know. I acknowledge that whats > > important to devs is not neccessarily going to gel for the users, but > > the fact that gentoo now does not have a usable desktop for a large part > > of its user community should be a concern for all. > > You could likely use the upstream version rather than the Gentoo > percolated product. That's what I do with my kernel patches, partly > for similar reasons as what you are dealing with. > >
-- gentoo-security@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-security] org-x11 GLSA 200509-07. Is bug #96053 fixed in -r3? (black icons) Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu>