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 4.43) id 1DwLm2-0006iJ-Hs for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:18:46 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6NFHF1P021624; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:17:15 GMT Received: from smtp19.wxs.nl (smtp19.wxs.nl [195.121.6.15]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6NFDhHb003181 for ; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:13:43 GMT Received: from [10.0.0.150] (ip3e83ab52.speed.planet.nl [62.131.171.82]) by smtp19.wxs.nl (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IK300EXK6BYXL@smtp19.wxs.nl> for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:14:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:14:13 +0200 From: Holly Bostick Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] thunderbird/firefox conflict In-reply-to: To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <42E25EC5.30808@planet.nl> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Accept-Language: nl-NL, nl, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050723) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 References: <64e8d2f20507222031348526ec@mail.gmail.com> <42E1D542.9000002@gmail.com> <42E225CD.1020605@planet.nl> <200507231515.18367.benno.schulenberg@gmail.com> <42E2463A.1040903@planet.nl> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id j6NFHF1g021624 X-Archives-Salt: f46b3bdc-4121-4a4a-a129-4fefa208cd25 X-Archives-Hash: 72ec5d0f6ba5f265ef0a0f09f73e70eb Tero Grundstr=F6m schreef: > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Holly Bostick wrote: >=20 >> >> In this case, syncing less often wasn't an issue-- the reason I had to >> upgrade to 1.0.6 was due to a GLSA. > > >=20 >=20 > I don't find any GLSA on firefox-1.0.6. Even the official firefox relea= se > notes doesn't list any security fixes. >=20 On the 20th, my system was listed as affected by this GLSA GLSA 200507-14: Mozilla Firefox: Multiple vulnerabilities =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Synopsis: Several vulnerabilities in Mozilla Firefox allow attacks ranging from execution of script code with elevated privileges to information leak. Announced on: July 15, 2005 Last revised on: July 15, 2005: 01 Affected package: www-client/mozilla-firefox-bin Affected archs: All Vulnerable: <1.0.5 Unaffected: >=3D1.0.5 However, at the time I was using 1.0.5-r1 (installed on the 19th). I didn't look at the GLSA that clearly at the time (just saw Firefox), so I didn't realize that I was in fact not supposed to be affected, but glsa-check mailed me that I was. So that explains that, if it explains it at all. glsa-check is not perfect, apparently; perhaps it made a mistake. >>> >>> There's no problem with using Firefox while it is being compiled. >>> Only as soon as it has actually been merged, it may be wise to >>> restart it. >> >> Not completely true. You can use an already-opened instance of >> Firefox--- as long as you stay within the same window. >> >> Open another window for any reason, and the whole thing will close dow= n >> (because you can't open a new instance of Firefox while Firefox is >> compiling). So forums or database sites that open new windows to creat= e >> posts, or display information about an item in the database are >> unuseable during this time. >> >> Rather than control my surfing, I prefer to use another browser until >> Firefox is finished compiling. >=20 >=20 > Erhm.. I don't know how in the world you could be seeing this kind of > behavior while compiling firefox... >=20 > Anyways, you're just so wrong here, Holly (and Benno is right). Don't y= ou > understand the concept of compiling? When something is being compiled > *nothing* gets installed during that time, and so it couldn't interfere > with your current installation. The program gets installed only after > compiling has finished. >=20 > make && make install, you know... or do you? Y'know, Tero-- bite me. Maybe I've got a (currently unknown) system problem that causes this behaviour only on my system, maybe I *used* see this behaviour, created a workaround, and haven't noticed that I don't need it anymore, maybe I'm using a different version of Portage than you which isn't quite as neat as the one you're using. You don't have to insult me with a strong implication that I'm stupid or something-- certainly over an issue that neither of us control (Portage), and certainly not over behaviour that I have clearly documented my experience of. Geez. Holly --=20 gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list