From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Fieqf-00050T-Ls for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 23 May 2006 21:55:30 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4NLsRVI006373; Tue, 23 May 2006 21:54:27 GMT Received: from skinny.southernlinux.net (cheap.rednecks.net [64.192.55.254]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4NLoTBq001890 for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 21:50:30 GMT Received: (qmail 7139 invoked by uid 210); 23 May 2006 17:49:23 -0400 Received: from 10.99.99.199 by skinny (envelope-from , uid 201) with qmail-scanner-1.25st (clamdscan: 0.88.1/1477. f-prot: 4.4.2/3.14.11. spamassassin: 3.1.0. perlscan: 1.25st. Clear:RC:1(10.99.99.199):. Processed in 0.07128 secs); 23 May 2006 21:49:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.99.99.199?) (10.99.99.199) by 0 with SMTP; 23 May 2006 17:49:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Security/QA Spring Cleaning From: Ned Ludd To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1148417466.18445.16.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> References: <1148266942.19708.90.camel@localhost> <1148415750.11998.34.camel@onyx> <1148417466.18445.16.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 17:50:27 -0400 Message-Id: <1148421027.20713.6.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: abee3b63-6f99-4257-9e7c-fd79bd84362b X-Archives-Hash: e965657d69ba29f4ac458500b749eb95 On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:51 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 16:22 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: > > And now per arch breakdowns. > > http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/reports/arch-vulnerabilities/ > > No offense, but that isn't exactly useful in its current form. heh. > For > example, x86 shows *all* of the packages, even ones where it has a > non-vulnerable version stable. Yeah that's is the point of this spring cleaning round. > I guess a breakdown of which > architectures still do not have a version *higher* than the ones listed > by the GLSA stable would be necessary instead. s/necessary/'ideal for Chris'/ Feel free to fire off a request to ferringb. He is trying to be helpful here and I'm all for taking advantage of that. -- Ned Ludd Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list