Bug#436249: package status
Hi, * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-14 11:34]: > Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > > On Saturday 13 October 2007 11:09:45 Nico Golde wrote: [...] > The packaging for this will be done tomorrow. One of the open bugs required a > code change which wasn't released until last weekend when I was out of town, > followed by a busy week this past week. When I originally was contacted > regarding these packages, I made the code change and checked with our lead > developer to see when he wanted our next release. I was told it would be 2-3 > days so I delayed uploading an updated package so that it could include the > latest version. Obviously that didn't happen, but every time I asked when it > would be released, it was just going to be another couple of days. In any > case, I do apologize for the delay but I had been trying to avoid > unnecessarily wasting time updating the package only to do so again a couple > of days later. [...] Just saw that you uploaded fix. Thank you for this. Next time please include the CVE id in your changelog. Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgpNXfUmIoKid.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#436249: package status
Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > On Saturday 13 October 2007 11:09:45 Nico Golde wrote: >> Hi, >> I really don't want to piss you off but see this fixed. >> What is the current status. >> It should not need 3 weeks to prepare a new upload should >> it? If some sponsoring is needed feel free to ping me. > > I pinged Ervin a few times, but haven't heard back since the first time. > > I'm CCing all his e-mail address's that I know, in case the one I've been > using isn't working for some reason. Ervin, are you still working on this? > > Also, I looked into packaging the new upstream version, but it's not > completely trivial because the build system changed, as well as the > database dependencies (so it would be a chance in number/type of binary > packages if done right). > Hi, The packaging for this will be done tomorrow. One of the open bugs required a code change which wasn't released until last weekend when I was out of town, followed by a busy week this past week. When I originally was contacted regarding these packages, I made the code change and checked with our lead developer to see when he wanted our next release. I was told it would be 2-3 days so I delayed uploading an updated package so that it could include the latest version. Obviously that didn't happen, but every time I asked when it would be released, it was just going to be another couple of days. In any case, I do apologize for the delay but I had been trying to avoid unnecessarily wasting time updating the package only to do so again a couple of days later. Wes, I haven't received any emails from you beyond the first couple we exchanged three weeks ago. I'll double check to make sure they weren't misfiled by my filters, but nothing came up when I just did a quick check. Regards, Ervin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#436249: package status
On Saturday 13 October 2007 11:09:45 Nico Golde wrote: > Hi, > I really don't want to piss you off but see this fixed. > What is the current status. > It should not need 3 weeks to prepare a new upload should > it? If some sponsoring is needed feel free to ping me. I pinged Ervin a few times, but haven't heard back since the first time. I'm CCing all his e-mail address's that I know, in case the one I've been using isn't working for some reason. Ervin, are you still working on this? Also, I looked into packaging the new upstream version, but it's not completely trivial because the build system changed, as well as the database dependencies (so it would be a chance in number/type of binary packages if done right). -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#436249: package status
Hi, I really don't want to piss you off but see this fixed. What is the current status. It should not need 3 weeks to prepare a new upload should it? If some sponsoring is needed feel free to ping me. Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgp7ggsOEqBZY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#436249: package status
Hi Just wondering about the packaging progress of the new upstream version. Looking over the pennmush upstream changelog, it seems that a few buffer overflows were fixed as well. It would be really nice to get the newest upstream version into unstable (and then testing). Cheers Steffen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
