#jogamp @ irc.freenode.net - 20130611 05:05:16 (UTC)

20130611 05:05:16 -CatOut- Previous @ http://jogamp.org/log/irc/jogamp_20130610050516.html
20130611 05:05:16 -CatOut- This channel is logged @ http://jogamp.org/log/irc/jogamp_20130611050516.html
20130611 05:27:47 * [Mike] (~Mike]@anon) has joined #jogamp
20130611 06:38:30 * monsieur_max (~maxime@anon) has joined #jogamp
20130611 06:39:02 <monsieur_max> hi everyone
20130611 06:39:17 <sgothel> good morning
20130611 06:40:45 <monsieur_max> sgothel: i asked you something yesterday evening, but i got to bed without watching the answer, sorry
20130611 06:41:15 <sgothel> ah .. expect ? security review ?
20130611 06:41:42 <monsieur_max> well, yeah, you were asking to test things :) i was wondering what
20130611 06:42:07 <sgothel> well .. you could browse code .. being creative .. finding attack vectors .. maybe even writing a test
20130611 06:42:44 <monsieur_max> haha :) ok, i think i'll pass then, i'm far from having the necessary knowledge of such wizardry activity
20130611 06:43:01 <sgothel> I currently change a few things in our security privilege usage to restrict it a bit more
20130611 06:43:43 <sgothel> such an attack could be to our own impl. API, or what we expose (lib loading, properties, file i/o, .. and also the 3rd party API: OpenGL, OpenAL, ..)
20130611 07:02:43 <monsieur_max> does people really do this ?
20130611 07:07:43 <sgothel> yes ofc
20130611 07:08:04 <sgothel> the bad guys .. and the good guys - hoping the latter will do it 1st
20130611 07:19:01 * monsieur_max (~maxime@anon) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
20130611 07:19:44 * monsieur_max (~maxime@anon) has joined #jogamp
20130611 07:47:13 * hharrison (~chatzilla@anon) Quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
20130611 08:47:51 * [Mike] (~Mike]@anon) Quit ()
20130611 13:46:23 * petrs (~petrs@anon) has joined #jogamp
20130611 14:06:42 <sgothel> Hi all - my 1st results are: we may need to dump all signed binaries :}
20130611 14:12:01 <rmk0> yow
20130611 14:12:14 <sgothel> pushing commit in a sec ..
20130611 14:12:31 <sgothel> https://jogamp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=752
20130611 14:22:44 <xranby> sgothel: who decided that if you accept a cert + app1 would grant you permissions for cert + app2 ?
20130611 14:25:55 * petrs (~petrs@anon) Quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
20130611 14:26:21 <sgothel> http://jogamp.org/git/?p=gluegen.git;a=commit;h=1a01dce6c42b398cdd68d405828774a3ab366456
20130611 14:26:34 <sgothel> adaption to sub-projects .. one sec ..
20130611 14:31:11 <sgothel> ok .. all pushed
20130611 14:35:17 <sgothel> if you would not be able to simply pass one of our own classes to SecurityUtil.getCommonAccessControlContext(Class<?>) it would have been OK. But for whatever reason - I failed here.
20130611 14:35:42 <sgothel> I then checked to get the caller class - it would be possible, but only as a hack .. and for which purpose ?
20130611 14:36:18 <sgothel> (i.e. use the definite caller class to get ProtectionDomain -> check permission - AcceccControler does it similar ..)
20130611 14:36:41 <sgothel> in the end .. all this was already to complicated and risky - hence: roll back - make it simple stupid!
20130611 14:37:17 <sgothel> so now, the only implicit privileges we give is w/ PropertyAccess, if the prefix is registered by an AllPermission caller
20130611 14:37:23 <sgothel> ..
20130611 14:38:02 <sgothel> the above .. failure's impact: access insecure properties from unsigned code!
20130611 14:38:20 <sgothel> + plus you could get the temp folder .. but you could not write to it :)
20130611 14:38:31 <sgothel> so .. medium critically
20130611 14:38:59 <sgothel> what was critical is the lack of permission check in library loading, which is added now
20130611 14:39:19 <sgothel> so .. as your CVE stated .. you may could be able to overwrite something .. ?
20130611 14:39:49 <sgothel> to all: please review! I guess the test code explains it a bit as well
20130611 14:40:41 <sgothel> Hope my answer satisfies a bit .. building now
20130611 14:41:01 <sgothel> After you guys could read a bit .. maybe we can chat about how to deal with it ..
20130611 14:42:02 * rmk0 eyes it
20130611 14:42:16 <rmk0> i must admit... i'm not up to date with jvm security at all
20130611 14:42:38 <rmk0> when it comes to things like reflection and the security manager, i automatically assume it's all completely unsafe
20130611 14:42:58 <sgothel> with Beans involved - yes :)
20130611 14:43:18 <sgothel> I started thinking about this when I analyzed the description of that 1st zero day
20130611 14:43:28 <sgothel> but could not find the nerves to review our code
20130611 14:44:07 <sgothel> finally I spent yesterday till now .. playing around to find a 'smart' solution - which only brought me back to a simple one :)
20130611 14:44:24 <sgothel> .. and not to forget the testing framework, oh dear ..
20130611 14:51:05 <sgothel> https://jogamp.org/chuck/job/jogl/1000/ 1000 ! ONE-THOUSAND :)
20130611 14:51:31 <sgothel> another anniversary hehe
20130611 14:52:55 <sgothel> I guess Xerxes favors a new RC now, while pulling all other signed JARs ..
20130611 14:53:15 <sgothel> .. so an out of plan RC, w/ maven .. ?
20130611 14:53:33 <sgothel> or .. medium risk (see new comment)
20130611 14:53:57 <rmk0> hang on... buried under stuff
20130611 14:55:22 * rmk0 reappears
20130611 14:55:56 <rmk0> is it a pipe dream on my part to assume the project will eventually adopt http://semver.org ?
20130611 14:56:42 <sgothel> hu ?
20130611 14:57:08 <sgothel> I remember the discussion .. semantics of minor/major ..
20130611 14:57:40 * odin_ (~Odin@anon) Quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
20130611 14:57:44 <sgothel> well, right now we steer towards 2.0.2 - whatever that means, but one thing for sure .. no more 'RC' versions :)
20130611 14:57:50 <rmk0> hehe
20130611 14:57:55 <rmk0> yes, i'd like to see 2.0.2 finally appear
20130611 14:58:22 <sgothel> ok .. after this build now .. we can decide .. when you have tested
20130611 14:58:31 <sgothel> I can push a 'private' signed version ..
20130611 14:58:48 <sgothel> and maybe .. 1-2 days we call it 2.0.2 - remaining features will be added to 2.0.3 etc ..
20130611 14:59:06 <sgothel> at least - then I will be true to my 'no more RC versions' statement :)
20130611 14:59:19 <sgothel> Q: do you have time to test ?
20130611 14:59:32 <rmk0> i can run the test suite here, if that's what you mean
20130611 14:59:42 <sgothel> or - one more last RC version - test test - then 2.0.2
20130611 14:59:49 <sgothel> yes
20130611 14:59:55 <rmk0> yeah, that's not a problem
20130611 15:00:15 <sgothel> guess we discuss this w/ more folks (Xerxes at least) ..
20130611 15:00:26 <sgothel> I hear the tears already ..
20130611 15:00:31 <rmk0> hehe
20130611 15:00:45 <sgothel> so to be safe .. maybe RC12 .. hmm
20130611 15:01:09 <sgothel> but pulling the old signed versions - that is the big question here!
20130611 15:01:16 <sgothel> which do have an impact
20130611 15:01:59 <sgothel> Xerxes already expressed his opinion in that security email .. remove signed and replace w/ new build
20130611 15:02:22 <rmk0> as someone that doesn't use applets... i've no idea what sort of impact that'd have
20130611 15:02:53 <sgothel> none
20130611 15:03:05 <rmk0> doesn't sound like a controversial thing to do, then
20130611 15:03:38 <monsieur_max> ok i finally got it :) the security concern is because of applets :)
20130611 15:03:40 <rmk0> do you want to push rc12 to maven central?
20130611 15:03:44 <sgothel> if somebody uses our server to download the signed jars for their applets .. maybe it doesn't work anymore
20130611 15:03:59 <sgothel> you would do that .. yes
20130611 15:04:01 <sgothel> :)
20130611 15:04:02 <rmk0> right
20130611 15:04:06 <rmk0> the rc11 on central is pretty ancient
20130611 15:04:09 <rmk0> november 2012...
20130611 15:04:40 <sgothel> ok .. so lets do an RC12 anyways - decide to pull other RC's .. w/ Xerxes, etc
20130611 15:06:23 <xranby> rmk0: semver assumes you want to maintain several branches?
20130611 15:06:34 <sgothel> no way
20130611 15:06:47 <rmk0> xranby: what gave that impression?
20130611 15:06:51 <sgothel> if somebody likes to do that .. ok, but not me :)
20130611 15:07:09 <rmk0> is just 11 rules that determine how/when version numbers are incremented
20130611 15:07:55 <sgothel> Xerxes: your opinion to the above ? you know, it's valued very much!
20130611 15:09:51 <xranby> if we follow this semver document then we would end up as 3.0.0 because of Rule 8. Major version X (X.y.z | X > 0) MUST be incremented if any backwards incompatible changes are introduced to the public API. ?
20130611 15:10:00 <rmk0> yep
20130611 15:10:25 <sgothel> .I don't like the firefox sell-out numbering scheme .. to many digits :)
20130611 15:10:37 <sgothel> and .. we never had a 2.0* release .. official
20130611 15:11:00 * odin_ (~Odin@anon) has joined #jogamp
20130611 15:11:16 <sgothel> actually .. I am more concern about how we deal w/ the old signed blobs now ..
20130611 15:11:35 <sgothel> hope Xerxes is not mad at me now :]
20130611 15:11:59 <xranby> sgothel: no i am not mad.. i am mostly puzzled how other java projects solve this for applets and jnlp in a sane way
20130611 15:12:28 <sgothel> versioning: we keep them all alive on server - until .. yes, until a severe security things comes up
20130611 15:12:36 <sgothel> in the end .. we are a rolling release
20130611 15:12:46 <sgothel> hence .. it doesn't matter too much, IMHO
20130611 15:13:13 <sgothel> all producers .. do it in a simple way, update JOGL .. adapt & test
20130611 15:13:31 <sgothel> i.e. you cannot update w/o testing anyways for a serious release, same goes for a JRE etc
20130611 15:13:58 <rmk0> think you may be conflating testing with API breakage
20130611 15:14:01 <sgothel> our task list for 2.0.2 has a few API changes still in the pipe .. though
20130611 15:14:17 <sgothel> even w/o API changes .. you never know
20130611 15:14:49 <sgothel> ofc .. goal is to become API stable and stable in general in this perspective
20130611 15:14:51 <rmk0> but if the API doesn't change, and code still breaks, what possible changes can someone depending on the API make?
20130611 15:15:15 <sgothel> semantics .. bugs they mitigate .. etc
20130611 15:15:42 <sgothel> see, java6 -> java7 was a hell .. on OSX w/o API change for the user :)
20130611 15:15:46 <rmk0> this really seems to be a separate issue than "indicating API changes with version numbering"
20130611 15:16:33 <xranby> sgothel: we may publish a 2.0.2 now in order to have a release and postpone new features for 2.Y.Z ?
20130611 15:16:35 <sgothel> my opinion - major for MAJOR changes (jogl1 -> jogl2). MINOR for medium API changes, SUB for minimal API changes and bug fixes
20130611 15:16:57 <rmk0> the problem with that is that "major" "medium" and "minimal" could mean absolutely anything
20130611 15:17:13 <rmk0> in practice, version numbers increment more or less at random
20130611 15:17:18 <sgothel> hence I don't like the discussion tooo much :)
20130611 15:17:24 <sgothel> yes
20130611 15:17:44 <sgothel> what would help is to tack API CHANGE in the git commit line
20130611 15:17:50 <sgothel> then we can simply list them
20130611 15:18:03 <sgothel> AFAIK, I did that in the last .. month ..
20130611 15:19:02 <rmk0> bear in mind that a lot of projects are now giving dependencies in terms of version ranges
20130611 15:19:06 <sgothel> ok .. will produce a signed version of current master build and our unofficial maven test blob we can test that ..
20130611 15:19:37 <xranby> imho its always good to have a version when you make a security release
20130611 15:19:52 <xranby> because people want to know if they are using something pre or post the fix
20130611 15:20:00 <sgothel> we had no version yes, but the RCs :)
20130611 15:20:02 <rmk0> if i depend on a project that follows semver strictly, i know i can specify a dependency range [n.m.0, (n + 1).0.0)
20130611 15:20:25 <sgothel> all true .. all true
20130611 15:20:38 <sgothel> I just see that we may end up increasing the major number now :)
20130611 15:21:11 <sgothel> so maybe thats the way it is .. minor increase means API change etc
20130611 15:21:22 <sgothel> major increase: new world
20130611 15:21:22 <rmk0> why is it that the API changes so frequently?
20130611 15:21:34 <sgothel> it will eventually calm down of course
20130611 15:21:47 <xranby> 3.0.0 == guaranteed to be originated from jogamp
20130611 15:21:50 <xranby> etc
20130611 15:21:55 <sgothel> it's just right now ..
20130611 15:22:13 <xranby> some "2.0 " tutorials are still written for the sun preview
20130611 15:22:14 <sgothel> I am more the friend of those minimal increase things
20130611 15:22:59 <xranby> like these old blobs http://download.java.net/media/jogl/builds/archive/jsr-231-2.0-beta10/
20130611 15:23:03 <sgothel> if we can be friends w/ sub-version == bugfix only, minor-version = security + medium-API
20130611 15:23:20 <rmk0> it's kind of annoying, as someone that has code that depends on the jogamp API, that i have to specify a specific version in the dependencies for my libraries
20130611 15:23:38 <rmk0> because if someone wants to use my libraries, they're forced to use the exact version i specified, because i can't specify a range
20130611 15:23:57 <sgothel> (05:23:03 PM) sgothel: if we can be friends w/ sub-version == bugfix only, minor-version = security + medium-API <- should work!
20130611 15:24:10 <sgothel> just a bit more conservative on the version increase :)
20130611 15:24:23 <rmk0> i don't understand the allergy to major version increases
20130611 15:24:37 <sgothel> dunno .. probably my age :)
20130611 15:24:49 <rmk0> especially given that it creates yet another undefined semver-ish fork
20130611 15:24:54 <sgothel> when I was a young boy .. nobody ever wanted to reach 1.0 :)
20130611 15:25:00 <rmk0> hehe, yeah, i remember
20130611 15:25:07 <rmk0> 0.9.823818237 forever
20130611 15:25:12 <xranby> :D
20130611 15:25:21 <xranby> i decirated with a b c at the end
20130611 15:25:24 <xranby> decorated
20130611 15:25:29 <sgothel> and I hate firefox version numbers :)
20130611 15:25:52 <rmk0> well the firefox versions are meaningless too
20130611 15:26:34 <rmk0> i've no idea what a major version increase means in their world... they've never said
20130611 15:27:43 <sgothel> so .. I guess we have a compromise :)
20130611 15:27:57 <sgothel> as long major.minor does not change: no api change
20130611 15:28:04 <sgothel> right now: we have no version
20130611 15:28:13 <sgothel> we do another RC12 for testing
20130611 15:28:38 <sgothel> I will try to add some API changes (ES3 ..) this week (I actually have time now)
20130611 15:28:50 <sgothel> we do our 1st release
20130611 15:28:56 <sgothel> (w/o RC)
20130611 15:29:05 <sgothel> then we keep the version semantics alive
20130611 15:29:09 <sgothel> acceptable for now ?
20130611 15:29:19 <xranby> (please skip 2.0.2 and go directly to 3.0.0)
20130611 15:29:31 <rmk0> i don't like the major.minor semantics, but i think i'm outnumbered
20130611 15:29:57 <rmk0> rest sounds fine
20130611 15:30:42 <sgothel> but 2.0.2 is burned in my brain :]
20130611 15:30:51 <xranby> its a ghost
20130611 15:30:53 <rmk0> hehe
20130611 15:30:57 <sgothel> (Xerxes's fault .. actually )
20130611 15:31:04 <rmk0> how come we ended up with 2.0.2?
20130611 15:31:06 <xranby> well i only found 2.0.1 in the javadoc
20130611 15:31:10 <xranby> i found
20130611 15:31:11 <sgothel> haha
20130611 15:31:41 <sgothel> don't mind ole Sun .. it was Ken and me who did that vision .. company doesn't matter - idea matters
20130611 15:31:52 <xranby> http://jogamp.org/deployment/jogamp-current/javadoc/jogl/javadoc/ " 2.0.1 Java Dependency Update to 1.5, February 2011"
20130611 15:32:23 <xranby> "2.0.0 Maintenance Release, July 2009"
20130611 15:32:28 <sgothel> our ONE-THOUSAND build is almost done :)
20130611 15:32:49 <sgothel> see .. it took 4 years to go up 2 sub-versions :)
20130611 15:33:13 <rmk0> /o\
20130611 15:33:59 <sgothel> I am sure .. when we broke that threshold of perfectionism .. the numbers will inflate soon :)
20130611 15:41:08 <xranby> Jenkins build became unstable: jogl » win7-x86_64-amd #1000
20130611 15:41:14 <sgothel> grrrr
20130611 15:41:37 <sgothel> uh .. just one of those .. UI tests
20130611 15:41:52 <sgothel> focus handler .. always a bitch
20130611 15:44:29 <xranby> what is it complaining about? https://jogamp.org/chuck/job/jogl/label=linux-x86_64-amd/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/
20130611 15:44:58 <xranby> err
20130611 15:45:00 <xranby> wrong machine
20130611 15:45:20 <xranby> https://jogamp.org/chuck/job/jogl/label=win7-x86_64-amd/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/?
20130611 15:45:51 <sgothel> .. uh .. linux/amd driver locked .. oh well
20130611 15:46:00 <sgothel> (other build)
20130611 15:46:22 <sgothel> https://jogamp.org/chuck/job/jogl/1000/label=win7-x86_64-amd/testReport/com.jogamp.opengl.test.junit.newt/TestFocus02SwingAWTRobot/testFocus01ProgrFocus/
20130611 15:46:48 <sgothel> for some reason .. sometimes .. the focus/key-type count doesn't work
20130611 15:46:54 <sgothel> (test code ..)
20130611 15:48:08 <rmk0> oh yeah, i forgot
20130611 15:48:18 <rmk0> the test suite... does it depend on files within the source distribution to run?
20130611 15:48:35 <rmk0> by that i mean, if we were to package all the test classes into a jar file, would that jar file require files outside of that jar to run?
20130611 15:48:35 <sgothel> pardon me ?
20130611 15:48:53 <sgothel> the normal jogl stuff + junit
20130611 15:48:55 <rmk0> sorry, it's an awkward question
20130611 15:48:59 <sgothel> np
20130611 15:49:12 <rmk0> i wrote this recently:
20130611 15:49:43 <rmk0> http://fossil.io7m.com/repo.cgi/io7m-blueberry
20130611 15:50:04 <rmk0> basically, i wanted non-technical people to be able to run the test suites for my software without having to install development tools or clone source code
20130611 15:50:07 <sgothel> I like blueberries .. yummy
20130611 15:50:11 <rmk0> hehe
20130611 15:50:22 <sgothel> YES YES YES
20130611 15:50:32 <sgothel> Xerxes and I were discussing a test suite for users :)
20130611 15:50:51 <rmk0> it obviously only works if all the resources that the test suite requires are available somewhere in the class path
20130611 15:50:51 <sgothel> i.e. exposing our crap as an applet/ or whatever .. to users to test .. and send results back home :)
20130611 15:51:08 <rmk0> i've been adapting my test suites to work that way for a while
20130611 15:51:14 <sgothel> best: single tests and all tests .. or ranges of tests
20130611 15:51:34 <sgothel> if you don't use ant: only gluegen, jogl + junit
20130611 15:51:44 <sgothel> actually .. a few test applets use junit as well :)
20130611 15:52:30 <sgothel> we also produce quite a bunch of screenshots .. would be nice to associate and send back home
20130611 15:53:37 <sgothel> Xerxes ? Wasn't that what we were looking for ? Something
20130611 15:54:49 <rmk0> http://waste.io7m.com/2013/05/29/io7m-blueberry-0.2.0-SNAPSHOT-documentation/d1p2s2.xhtml
20130611 15:54:53 <xranby> yes that would be cool to have
20130611 15:54:54 <rmk0> it's fairly dumb at present
20130611 15:55:21 <rmk0> you give it a package prefix within which to search and it grabs everything
20130611 15:55:38 <sgothel> nice .. toggle some properties (debug, etc) ?
20130611 15:56:19 <rmk0> it doesn't, but it could
20130611 15:59:30 * monsieur_max (~maxime@anon) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
20130611 16:32:38 * hharrison (~chatzilla@anon) has joined #jogamp
20130611 16:59:55 <sgothel> http://jogamp.org/deployment/archive/master/gluegen_676-joal_440-jogl_1000-jocl_802-signed/
20130611 17:07:04 * monsieur_max (~maxime@anon) has joined #jogamp
20130611 17:08:45 <hharrison> Lucky number 1000
20130611 17:10:28 <hharrison> sgothel: reading through the backlog, still care for my $0.02 on version numbers?
20130611 17:14:02 <sgothel> not tonight - pretty exhausted to 'fight' this now - but .. if it pleases me, hehe :)
20130611 17:15:19 <sgothel> testing build .. hmm
20130611 17:17:22 <hharrison> I see your test machine is hitting the focus issue we've been seeing
20130611 17:17:29 <hharrison> x86-64, win7
20130611 17:18:37 <sgothel> sporadic .. ugly stuff
20130611 17:18:56 <sgothel> the security issues .. if you like to review
20130611 17:19:05 <sgothel> pls check irc-log
20130611 17:19:14 <sgothel> https://jogamp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=752
20130611 17:19:26 <sgothel> .. maybe we should remove old blobs
20130611 17:19:32 <sgothel> (signed ones)
20130611 17:20:15 <hharrison> I'm not very up to speed on the AccessManager stuff, but I can read it through and see if anything jumps out at me
20130611 17:20:31 <hharrison> sorry, SecurityManager
20130611 17:21:36 <sgothel> thx .. both same
20130611 17:28:25 <sgothel> can't get jogl+joal to run as applet (linux/win) w/ oracle's .. java7_u21
20130611 17:28:44 <sgothel> claims wrong cert .. even though a simple jogl applet works .. jar signature is ok etc
20130611 17:28:47 <sgothel> oh well :)
20130611 17:29:40 <sgothel> and on OSX java7 .. the napplet's show initial wrong place (upper right corner) .. fixed after 'refresh' .. always something
20130611 17:35:31 <hharrison> reading jogl commit 1c1ffed31548094cf7afbb4c83b0cb627ae3a1ad
20130611 17:35:43 <hharrison> curious, why not actually mark the hashmaps as final?
20130611 17:37:06 <sgothel> there was something .. hmm, good point
20130611 17:39:05 <hharrison> jogl commit 05eef46e33f41f5c234ffb1563fd8f641208fe85
20130611 17:39:27 <hharrison> The two static String 'keys' in FontFactory....do they actually need to be public?
20130611 17:39:45 <hharrison> FontConstructorPropKey and DefaultFontConstructor
20130611 17:40:27 <hharrison> It's a small detail, but those strings will get inlined in any class that uses them which can bloat .class size
20130611 17:40:29 <sgothel> they expose an API .. property name and default value, well .. it was a quick cleanup
20130611 17:40:46 <sgothel> oh .. well then ..
20130611 17:40:53 <sgothel> good point
20130611 17:41:12 <sgothel> maven 2.0.2-rc-20130611 out
20130611 17:41:20 * [Mike] (~Mike]@anon) has joined #jogamp
20130611 17:42:10 <sgothel> I head to dinner and then rest - if you can test and send me some results and/or bugs, appreciated.
20130611 17:42:43 <sgothel> @Harvey: Maybe you can send me your ideas / review by email . will take care of it tomorrow. And all the others as well
20130611 17:42:46 <hharrison> I just have time for the first-pass cut currently, will do a more detailed read tonight
20130611 17:42:55 <sgothel> thank you
20130611 17:43:27 <hharrison> It should be in your inbox for your morning, have a few things I need to tackle currently
20130611 17:44:12 <hharrison> Actually, I'll just write them as patches, you can choose to cherry-pick them/pull them as you see fit
20130611 17:44:27 <hharrison> That's just easier for evertone
20130611 17:44:41 <hharrison> ahem, s/evertone/everyone/
20130611 17:44:46 <sgothel> @all: maybe you can sent an email to the forum for Julien and the others .. i.e. security issues .. and new test build incl. maven
20130611 17:44:50 * rmk0 pulls
20130611 17:45:07 <sgothel> I don't write total nonsense .. wasted, otherwise I do it tomorrow :)
20130611 17:46:25 <sgothel> good night & laters
20130611 18:06:11 <rmk0> ran jogl and gluegen test suites from current HEAD, no failures
20130611 18:06:17 <rmk0> "Everything is Ok"
20130611 18:06:34 <rmk0> that's on linux amd64, java 7, intel hd 4000
20130611 18:07:07 <rmk0> OpenGL vendor string: Intel Open Source Technology Center
20130611 18:07:07 <rmk0> OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI Intel(R) Sandybridge Mobile
20130611 18:07:07 <rmk0> OpenGL core profile version string: 3.1 (Core Profile) Mesa 9.1.3
20130611 18:07:08 <rmk0> etc
20130611 18:21:28 <rmk0> i take it these artifacts aren't destined for maven central
20130611 21:30:25 * monsieur_max (~maxime@anon) Quit (Quit: Leaving.)
20130612 00:02:39 * hharrison (~chatzilla@anon) has left #jogamp
20130612 05:05:16 -CatOut- Continue @ http://jogamp.org/log/irc/jogamp_20130612050516.html