SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
GNOME usually uses always the latest stable version of their modules. This doesnt mean it can not work with some previous releases, usually not, but in some cases it does. Anyway the request from my side for GTK+4 was also to have a ready testbed for working with GTK+4
on future softwares, like we have other developer tools already in Slackware. Anyway I dont see a big problem in shipping it as extra
if possible as it will not require anything new than pango iirc. So I also hope that once XFCE is out Pat also updates the other older
stuff we still stick with (I'm reffering to upower, udisks, pango, etc...).
What gmgf requested I also understood it as an addition to the gtk stuff we have right now, but I can also say that if we have all the
other gtk+4 deps ready I am ok with it too, as its a simple matter of building it.
And lastly it is obvious for who follows gtk development and related projects that gtk+4 is not ready, but the intention of having it is to permit those people to help with development of gtk itself and port other software to it for the future purposes.
CVE-2020-3898: The ppdOpen function did not handle invalid UI
constraint. ppdcSource::get_resolution function did not handle
invalid resolution strings.
CVE-2019-8842: The ippReadIO function may under-read an extension
I just stumbled upon the fact that, although /var/run is a bind mount of /run, the content of /var/run/user/$UID is only visible below /var/run but when looking in /run/user/$UID it is empty! This is because /var/run/user/$UID is automatically created as an additional tmpfs mount and mounts are private by default.
As far as I remember there were reasons for /var/run not simply being a symlink to /run but I think it would nevertheless be reasonable that its contents are identical, or not? Marking /run as shared seems to be a possible way to solve this confusion:
Code:
--- rc.S.orig 2020-02-13 19:42:45.000000000 +0100
+++ rc.S 2020-04-30 18:48:50.739066875 +0200
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
if ! grep -wq "tmpfs /run tmpfs" /proc/mounts ; then
/sbin/mount -v -n -t tmpfs tmpfs /run -o mode=0755,size=32M,nodev,nosuid,noexec
fi
+ /sbin/mount --make-shared /run
fi
# Load the loop device kernel module:
… or would this have other unwanted side-effects?
(Note: shared is intentionally applied in a separate line so that it is also applied if /run has already been mounted by initrd!)
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
