On 09/22/2011 03:30 PM, Evgeni Golov wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/18/2011 05:44 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > >> Thanks. As mentioned on IRC, I'd prefer a diff that didn't involve >> moving the "now upstream" patches in to the source, and dropping the >> patches; it makes the diff noisier and less "obvious" than would be >> ideal for stable. > > Working on it as we write.
http://pinky.die-welt.net/~evgeni/tmp/v86d-CVE-2011-1070-stable.diff >> In terms of the other fixes, #525415 might be okay. > > Ok, including. > >> What's the intent >> of >> >> * Add manual_add_modules uvesafb to the initramfs-hook (thanks >> Ubuntu!) > > v86d needs the uvesafb module in the initrd if started there. The user > would have to fiddle around himself with the initrd after installing > v86d, now he hasn't as the file is added automatically. Droped that, as it changes expected(?) behaviour in stable :) >>> For oldstable I did not produce any debdiff, as I dont think anyone is >>> using v86d there, but I could apply the only-CVE patch on the package. >> >> That would be good; thanks. > > Will do so. http://pinky.die-welt.net/~evgeni/tmp/v86d-CVE-2011-1070-oldstable.diff Didn't include the #525415 fix here, or would you say it's ok too? regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e7b3e61.7080...@debian.org