it has been granted in all stable releases and current

Updated already, problem fixed!

alpine 2.20 (the version in -current) has a nice improvement: now the password file can be properly encrypted. The configure file for 2.20 reads:
while for version 2.11 (in 14.1) it was:
If the passfile will be enabled, to encrypt the passfile, user can do something like this:

1 members found this post helpful.

Poppler 0.37 Releases:

http://poppler.freedesktop.org/releases.html

many bugs fix version are available since 0.32 (0.33,0.34,0.35,0.36).

Poppler 0.36 and 0.37 work fine here

Any chance of having llvm bumped back to 3.6.2? The Unreal Engine doesn't compile against it (yet??). If i'm the only one having issues with it I guess it's no big deal, I don't mind modifying it on my PC. Thought I'd ask though.

There seems to be something wrong with MPlayer in -current, some flac files doesn't work, but they do with mplayer from 14.1. (and yes.. they work with ffplay)

This would affect much of X11 support especially OpenGL support through mesa.

The application should be patched instead of llvm downgrade.
LLVM downgrade would remove opengl 4+ support for open drivers.

1 members found this post helpful.

Ah, I didn't realize that. Alright I'll just keep bumping it on my PC, no big deal. Thanks for the info

Simple ones

httpd 2.4.16 -> 2.4.17 (2015-10-13)
audacious 3.6.1 -> 3.6.2 (2015-05-30)
btrfs-progs v3.18.2 -> v4.2.2
e2fsprogs 1.42.12 -> 1.42.13
git 2.5.1 -> 2.6.2 (2015-10-16)
hdparm 9.45 -> 9.48 (2015-06-17)
vsftpd 3.0.2 -> 3.0.3 (2015-07)
zsh 5.0.7 -> 5.1.1 (2015-09-11)

not so simple ones due to packages depending on them
cryptsetup 1.6.7 -> 1.6.8 (2015-09-08)
curl 7.41 -> 7.45 (2015-10-07)
libdrm 2.4.64 -> 2.4.65 (2015-09-14)
libgcrypt 1.6.3 -> 1.6.4 (2015-09-08) and team (libassuan, pinentry, etc)


Not a package upgrade per se (and maybe a stupid idea) but would it be useful to gradually change slackbuilds (when the slackbuild is modified due to a new version) to install documentation in just /usr/doc/packagename without its version ?

Many times during upgrades there are many messages "removing /usr/doc/foo-1.23/file" which isn't actually true because the same file is installed in the foo-1.24 directory. Sometimes true "removed files" messages can be lost amidst these usr/doc messages.

I didn't check it thoroughly but a quick test shows that packages which have two versions (like gnupg, gtk, etc) install documentation in different directories so there wouldn't be a problem if the version is removed (gnupg and gnupg2, gtk+2 and gtk+3, etc). Only a few packages use the same /usr/doc/name directory (db42,db44,db48 use /usr/doc/db-version directory, gstreamer packages use /usr/doc/gst-foo-version directory). These packages a) contain pretty much identical documentation and b) the directory can be changed to follow their package names (/usr/doc/db42 and /usr/doc/gstreamer0 directory for example).

Not something critically important of course but anyone care to discuss it ?

Thank you.

I would put the documentation in /usr/doc/<packagename> as you suggest, with

I wonder since Mesa got Nine support going if enabling the Intel Gallium drivers for i915 and ilo would be wise since Nine requires the Gallium API to be in usage with the driver? I know ilo can be enabled/disabled with the switch in xorg.conf option DRI="ilo".

sysklogd 1.5.1

http://www.infodrom.org/projects/sys...2014-10-06.php

Which fixed CVE-2014-3634.

1 members found this post helpful.

ntpd, as there is few low and medium security vulnerabilities that have been patched:

http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Main...ulnerabilities