From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2494 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2004 23:05:09 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Sep 2004 23:05:09 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CC4YO-0006un-7N for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:05:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 59 invoked by uid 89); 27 Sep 2004 23:05:07 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 13696 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2004 23:05:07 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:05:02 -0700 Organization: Sometimes Message-ID: References: <1096321571.15324.16.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1250 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-66-58.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) Sender: news Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage 2.0.51 comments/questions X-Archives-Salt: d9b85f84-2b33-441f-9c8b-0f7c368e8654 X-Archives-Hash: 7f6bda523f74823bc2bae44e7061762a Chris Gianelloni posted <1096321571.15324.16.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net>, excerpted below, on Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:46:11 -0400: > profiles OK, now that contradicts what Nic Jones said, that it should be singular, /etc/portage/profile. Which is is? BTW, I see someone referring to /etc/portage/virtuals again today, and that's the whole thing that raised the question about profile or profiles, since portage complained that the direct under portage virtuals location was depreciated (I like to put placeholder files in place, so I don't have to go digging up the info when I need it, I just go edit my placeholder file, so I created /etc/portage/virtuals immediately after switching to .51 as I'd seen it mentioned, and had portage squawk about it) and said I should use profiles/virtuals instead, but then I saw a reference for another file to profile/*, and wondered if they were the same dir with a typo in one, or whether both really WERE looked for. >> QA Notice: Security risk /usr/bin/crontab. Please consider relinking with >> 'append-ldflags -Wl,-z,now' to fix. >> >> What's this mean? What are the implications? > > Actually, that is more a message for the developer. You can perform the > same function locally with the LDFLAGS variable in your make.conf, but > really the package should be fixed by the developer by adding the > "append-ldflags -Wl,-z,now" to the ebuilds, as stated by the emerge > process. This has all been since sfperms was added to the default > FEATURES. Thanks. That makes sense. Now I have what I need to fix it. As you agreed, tho, even if it's meant primarily for the developer, security risk messages without equally clear how-to-fix messages aren't really where Gentoo should be. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list