Hi,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 09:08:14PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + bookworm moreinfo > > On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 21:55 +0200, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > > nmu libnginx-mod-http-modsecurity_1.0.3-1+b1 . ANY . bookworm . -m > > "Closes: 1037226" > > *Please* include information in binNMU requests that allows us to > identify the actual problem without having to dig around. As an > additional note, the text in the "message" argument (-m) is copied > verbatim into changelogs, which will then be visible to users and > anyone else viewing the changelog. It needs to be more descriptive than > a bug number. right. Should I send a new request? Or how can I append the requested info to the original NMU request? > The BTS metadata for #1037226 indicates that it also affects unstable > and testing. Is that correct? Yes, it is - but meanwhile Nginx has a new version in unstable (1.24 - stable: 1.22), so there is a PR for the unstable package: https://salsa.debian.org/modsecurity-packaging-team/libnginx-mod-http-modsecurity/-/merge_requests/1/diffs > If so, it needs to be fixed there first. The package in unstable will be modified soon - but those modifications will produce a different package. Would it be allowed in case of stable (related to freeze policy)? > If not, please explain why unstable is not affected despite having > exactly the same package version. Theoretically there are the same issue in all releases (stable, testing, unstable). But as the core application has a new version, I think it would be better to recompile the source package in stable, and after apply the modifications, then upload the new package to unstable. (And - I guess - after that the package will be migrated to unstable) Thanks, a.