On Sat, 2020-04-11 at 13:03:34 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > Thank you for your bug report, please specify which inetutils versions > > you are refering to in pristine condition without any patches. You > > mention an assert, which assert exactly? > > The inetutils version in Debian is based off upstream's 1.9.4 with > 30 patches from upstream git master, plus 7 local patches (only 3 > of which are pending and relevant to be sent upstream) and all of > these local patches are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. > > That is a premature, and irresponsible decision to make. Those that > maintain inetutils cannot possible know that. > > The assert is from the python PoC itself. I also mentioned that I've > not done any proper analysis on anything, not even properly read the > full advisory, and while my guess is that upstream pristine inetutils > is pretty much affected, I cannot confirm it. But provided enough > information, links and context to go from here, which apparently has > gone unread. > > Clearly, that isn't the case -- since _I_ answer the email. What is > clear is that Debian has no interest in working with upstream. You > are more insistant to put blame on people working on the code than > actually take responsibility and trying to corect the situation.
Oh wow, this is all from the start a great example of the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines being in play… > So please, someone, take a proper look at the aforementioned information, > and go from there. > > Can you do so, instead of goin off tangets? Err, seriously? No… right now I've got zero motivation to even think about dealing with this… I'm out. Guillem
