On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 22:00, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 August 2003 2:04 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > You know you could have submitted a bug for it... *cough*
> 
> Yep.  Where it'd sit in Bugzilla for a month or two, if it got picked up at 
> all.  Sometimes, the right way of doing something isn't the *best* way :(

Except for the game that you have an ebuild for on your page (neverball)
was already added to portage earlier today by Mr_Bones, so a bug would
have been resolved immediately, and both you and gerrynjr would be aware
of it being in portage already.

> 
> Tbh, it should be gerrynjr asking for this to find its way into portage, but 
> as grateful as he seemed to be for being able to play this game, I don't 
> think he was confident enough to take it further (he's a doc person, not an 
> ebuild hacker).
> 
> > I'll take care of it.
> 
> Thanks.  I'll take a look when you're done; it'll be interesting to read how 
> to make best use of the games eclass.

As I said, it's in portage.  I haven't looked at it myself, but I'm sure
it meets our normal method of using games.eclass.

> Btw - who maintains the HLDS ebuilds?  There's a shell exploit in HLDS <= 
> 3.1.1.1d; I can provide details off the hlds_linux mailing list if no-one 
> here's read about it yet.

Everything in app-games is maintained by the entire games group.  We're
small enough that we don't step on each other's toes much.  I don't see
any version of halflife-server lower than 3.1.1.1d in CVS, so that is a
non-issue.  I actually checked this as soon as the security warning was
posted on bugtraq.  Thanks for the heads up, though.  It is greatly
appreciated.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux