00:54 <dlcusa> Any thoughts about OpenCRUX kernel releases? 6.12.30 is newest longterm, 6.13.8 is newest stable, and 6.14.rc7 dropped on the 18th. If we go with a six-month cycle, should we target newest stable at last OpenCRUX release + 3 months?

01:03 <dlcusa> s/6.13.8/6.14.8/ and /6.14.rc7/6.15.rc7/ -- more caffeine incoming.

05:41 <SiFuh> dlcusa: Usually LTS. Stable is a thought though too

05:42 <dlcusa> It just seems like 6.12.23 is a bit too stable.

05:43 <dlcusa> Especially for half-year updates.

05:47 <SiFuh> NEW -rwxr-xr-x root/root usr/lib/libpkgconf.la

05:54 <dlcusa> Show of hands: Do any CRUX users use a kernel until it drops out of long term support?

05:58 <dlcusa> Maybe that's a question for #crux.

06:29 <SiFuh> dlcusa: maybe that's a question for people who are awake ;-)

07:12 <dlcusa> Szzz-z-z-z-z...

07:20 <dlcusa> And now kernel 6.15 has officially dropped.

07:21 <SiFuh> dlcusa: Well I am building a kernel, but it is for building the system. Because it seems I need to have an installed kernel for some ports

12:20 <SiFuh> ukky: https://i.snipboard.io/yEXfYl.jpg Finally got around to working on the leak. No brass on PVC thread. PVC to PVC thread and brass to brass thread. And cut off valve for the sink. There is another cut off valve for everything in the bathroom including the sink. And the entire section is fully removeable.

14:30 <SiFuh> farkuhar: You know what will be a nice option to have? The ability to resume a port with out a complete rebuild when some command fails. I am not talking about configure and make. I am talking about the extra commands. So something builds successfully but during packaging you need to move files around or remove files and stuff. Why should we have to rebuild the entire port again?

16:32 <dlcusa> prt-get checkpoint/restart? In the middle of making gcc? That would be really nice. But I think that's out-of-scope for the time being.

16:39 <SiFuh> dlcusa: It would be primarly used for port building. Then once happy rebuild it completely

16:48 <SiFuh> Libressl removed support for using SHA256 in CMS (Cryptographic Message Syntax) signatures. They remove code that is unused, obscure, hard to audit, or insecure. They only include crypto algorithms that have a clear, actively used purpose and a good security record. They have avoided large, legacy API surfaces like those in OpenSSL, which can increase attack surface and complexity. CMS is an old standard

16:48 <SiFuh> derived from S/MIME and PKCS#7. It’s rarely used outside of very specific enterprise or government systems. Most modern applications use TLS, JWT, or more modern crypto protocols. For kernel module signing (like in Linux), CMS _is_ used. So, LibreSSL developers stripped CMS down to minimal functionality (only SHA1) or dropped it completely, as they don't consider it worth supporting. (Not because of

16:48 <SiFuh> Linux itself but the code)

16:50 <zorz> libressl is libressl

16:50 <zorz> :P

17:14 <SiFuh> iputils is built with meson... fscking hell those faggots