search for: nastygrams

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: > >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >>> I think most LLVM users on Windows are interested on X86 only. This >>> saves a lot of time on the build process and creates smaller >>>

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: > MSVC *is* continuously checked; see > http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-i686-xp-msvc9. Anyone > who breaks the MSVC build will get a nastygram from buildbot. This is new news for me. If the developer who broke the msvc build receives a nastygram, would he urged to fix it when he has no msvc compiler and probably no

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: > >> MSVC *is* continuously checked; see >> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-i686-xp-msvc9.  Anyone >> who breaks the MSVC build will get a nastygram from buildbot. > > This is new news for me. > > If the developer

Am 09.08.09 23:36, schrieb Eli Friedman: > > MSVC *is* continuously checked; see > http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-i686-xp-msvc9. Anyone > who breaks the MSVC build will get a nastygram from buildbot. > Please note that the MSVC buildbot only builds the X86 target at the moment. I don't know why though.

Hey all, Let's make an assumption: 1) I am a root user on a system. 2) I don't want said system being used as a jumping-off point if either a user account or the root account is compromised. Given an unencrypted private key, plus a known_hosts file, plus bash_history, it's a pretty easy avenue of attack once you're in the front door. And it's happened before*. Thus,

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> I think most LLVM users on Windows are interested on X86 only. This >> saves a lot of time on the build process and creates smaller >> executables. Anyways, it they want all targets, it is simply a matter of >> passing

Hi, as some IPSec users might be worried about the "BSD derived RFC3173 IPComp encapsulation will expand arbitrarily nested payload" from http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Apr/0 , here's some braindump: To be affected it's believed that you need to 1) manually compile in IPSEC (not done in GENERIC or the release), 2) have an entry for ipcomp in your security

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> Also, now msvc support multiple target. So it's better to set it as >> ${LLVM_ALL_TARGETS} >> It's can working, why not set it to:. > > I think most LLVM users on Windows are interested on X86 only. This > saves a lot of time on the build process and creates smaller >

...l-source-2.2.19-6.2.1.i386.rpm from redhat I then treid to apply the patches: cat ../ext3-0.0.6b/linux-2.2.19pre14.kdb.diff | patch -sp1 cat ../ext3-0.0.6b/linux-2.2.19pre14.ext3.diff | patch -sp1 But got prompted for which file to patch and not knowing what to do I returned through them and got nastygrams about hunks being ingnored. This I can see since I did not tell it what to do. Can I apply these patched to the redhat source and if so what do I need to do? I just subscribed to this list and have not recieved a message yet so I hope you guys are out there. This output is a little different sin...

I like to retain some semblance of optimism for humanity, and so I'm just going to hope that this assertion is false. I have to hope that there is at least a large minority of people who correctly use ssh-agent for the suppression of password prompting, and protect their private keys with passwords.? -------- Original message -------- From: Dan Kaminsky <dan at doxpara.com> Date: