Processed: Info was given and looks RC to me
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 874727 - moreinfo Bug #874727 [libcoin80v5] libcoin80v5: Program using libcoin80v5 and any other library that uses lebexpat1 segfaults. Removed tag(s) moreinfo. > severity 874727 serious Bug #874727 [libcoin80v5] libcoin80v5: Program using libcoin80v5 and any other library that uses lebexpat1 segfaults. Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 874727: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=874727 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: info-beamer: nmu 1.0~pre3+dfsg-0.1
Processing control commands: > tags -1 pending Bug #817778 [info-beamer] silkscreen font is not DFSG compliant Added tag(s) pending. -- 817778: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=817778 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: info
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 678026 libatk-adaptor: CVE-2012-3378: insecure tempdir handling
Bug #678026 {Done: Samuel Thibault sthiba...@debian.org} [libatk-adaptor]
libatk-adaptor: insecure tempdir handling
Changed Bug title to 'libatk-adaptor: CVE-2012-3378: insecure tempdir handling'
from 'libatk-adaptor: insecure tempdir handling'
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
678026: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=678026
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Processed: info
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: found 551289 0.4.5-5 Bug #551289 [poppler] poppler: integer overflow and null ptr dereference vulnerabilities There is no source info for the package 'poppler' at version '0.4.5-5' with architecture '' Unable to make a source version for version '0.4.5-5' Bug Marked as found in versions 0.4.5-5. notfound 551289 0.4.5-5.1 Bug #551289 [poppler] poppler: integer overflow and null ptr dereference vulnerabilities There is no source info for the package 'poppler' at version '0.4.5-5.1' with architecture '' Unable to make a source version for version '0.4.5-5.1' Bug No longer marked as found in versions 0.4.5-5.1. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Processed: info
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: found 551289 0.4.4-1 Bug #551289 [poppler] poppler: integer overflow and null ptr dereference vulnerabilities There is no source info for the package 'poppler' at version '0.4.4-1' with architecture '' Unable to make a source version for version '0.4.4-1' Bug Marked as found in versions 0.4.4-1. notfound 551289 0.4.5-5 Bug #551289 [poppler] poppler: integer overflow and null ptr dereference vulnerabilities There is no source info for the package 'poppler' at version '0.4.5-5' with architecture '' Unable to make a source version for version '0.4.5-5' Bug No longer marked as found in versions 0.4.5-5. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Processed: info
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: fixed 533347 1.0.8-1 Bug#533347: wireshark: new upstream version (1.0.8) available with security fixes Bug marked as fixed in version 1.0.8-1. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#412950: Processed: info that it has *not* been dealt with
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:30:58AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:03:39AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:31:40PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote: I'm not a maintainer, but I did have info that bug had not been dealt with, so I reopened the bug with that info. I see that you sent info, but only to the BTS control bot, which prevents it from being reflected in the bug log. I suggest you re-send it. Btw, as for this BTS ping-pong game, Max asked that you file separate bugs instead of reopening this one. This doesn't sound like an unreasonable request, so why not just do that? Robert, i don't really see the reason why this should be done. It's probably helpful to the maintainers to have a separate bug for each violation. I can imagine that working with one [1] huge report while trying to actually fix stuff can be a PITA. Well, i suppose that callign the reporter stupid, as max did is not helpful also. Nor threatenenign me to be blacklisted from the BTS. Max should really calm down, i know he is not agreeing with the firmware split, but this doesn't allow him to be impolite and threatening. I suppose the right way would be to split the bug report, and retitle it for each actual violation case, but hey ... [1] well, actually a few merged reports, but it amounts to the same. Sadly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#243022: Processed: info that it has *not* been dealt with
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:13:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:30:58AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:03:39AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:31:40PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote: I'm not a maintainer, but I did have info that bug had not been dealt with, so I reopened the bug with that info. I see that you sent info, but only to the BTS control bot, which prevents it from being reflected in the bug log. I suggest you re-send it. Btw, as for this BTS ping-pong game, Max asked that you file separate bugs instead of reopening this one. This doesn't sound like an unreasonable request, so why not just do that? Robert, i don't really see the reason why this should be done. But the maintainer does, and for a change this request doesn't conflict with the Social Contract. Why are we discussing on whether we prefer one bug or multiple bugs when we have actual SC violations right now that need fixing? It's probably helpful to the maintainers to have a separate bug for each violation. I can imagine that working with one [1] huge report while trying to actually fix stuff can be a PITA. Well, i suppose that callign the reporter stupid, as max did is not helpful also. Nor threatenenign me to be blacklisted from the BTS. Max should really calm down, i know he is not agreeing with the firmware split, but this doesn't allow him to be impolite and threatening. IIRC he was threatening Markus, not you. Anyway, I suppose by now he realises that was completely inappropiate, and actually counterproductive. Now can we please get this over with? -- Robert Millan GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383403: Processed: info that it has *not* been dealt with
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:21:18AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:13:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:30:58AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:03:39AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:31:40PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote: I'm not a maintainer, but I did have info that bug had not been dealt with, so I reopened the bug with that info. I see that you sent info, but only to the BTS control bot, which prevents it from being reflected in the bug log. I suggest you re-send it. Btw, as for this BTS ping-pong game, Max asked that you file separate bugs instead of reopening this one. This doesn't sound like an unreasonable request, so why not just do that? Robert, i don't really see the reason why this should be done. But the maintainer does, and for a change this request doesn't conflict with the Social Contract. Why are we discussing on whether we prefer one bug or multiple bugs when we have actual SC violations right now that need fixing? What does it gain to close the bug that contains the history of the problem ? It's probably helpful to the maintainers to have a separate bug for each violation. I can imagine that working with one [1] huge report while trying to actually fix stuff can be a PITA. Well, i suppose that callign the reporter stupid, as max did is not helpful also. Nor threatenenign me to be blacklisted from the BTS. Max should really calm down, i know he is not agreeing with the firmware split, but this doesn't allow him to be impolite and threatening. IIRC he was threatening Markus, not you. 15:22:53 maks svenl: don't fuck with the bts or get your email blacklisted kthx Anyway, I suppose by now he realises that was completely inappropiate, and actually counterproductive. Nice of you to have such good faith in the socialness of the members of the kernel team. I have learned not to have such faith myself though. Now can we please get this over with? fine with me, but then, as always, the other side will never forget, and issues will not improve until they recognize that their behaviour is not appropriate, which i have some serious doubt they have the strength of character to do. Sadly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383403: Processed: info that it has *not* been dealt with
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:33:03AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: But the maintainer does, and for a change this request doesn't conflict with the Social Contract. Why are we discussing on whether we prefer one bug or multiple bugs when we have actual SC violations right now that need fixing? What does it gain to close the bug that contains the history of the problem ? My guess is that this makes it easier to track the problems, by closing stuff in changelog when a partial fix is done. -- Robert Millan GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: info that it has *not* been dealt with
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: found 242866 2.6.24-6 Bug#242866: drivers containing firmware blobs Bug#243022: ymfpci_image.h: Sourceless microcode without permission to redistribute Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware Bug#412950: linux-2.6: [legal] the current kernel tarball doesn't respect the GR 2006-007 Bug marked as found in version 2.6.24-6 and reopened. found 242866 2.6.25-3 Bug#242866: drivers containing firmware blobs Bug#243022: ymfpci_image.h: Sourceless microcode without permission to redistribute Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware Bug#412950: linux-2.6: [legal] the current kernel tarball doesn't respect the GR 2006-007 Bug marked as found in version 2.6.25-3. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#412950: Processed: info that it has *not* been dealt with
maximilian attems wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:39:58PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: found 242866 2.6.24-6 Bug#242866: drivers containing firmware blobs Bug#243022: ymfpci_image.h: Sourceless microcode without permission to redistribute Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware Bug#412950: linux-2.6: [legal] the current kernel tarball doesn't respect the GR 2006-007 Bug marked as found in version 2.6.24-6 and reopened. found 242866 2.6.25-3 Bug#242866: drivers containing firmware blobs Bug#243022: ymfpci_image.h: Sourceless microcode without permission to redistribute Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware Bug#412950: linux-2.6: [legal] the current kernel tarball doesn't respect the GR 2006-007 Bug marked as found in version 2.6.25-3. thanks Stopping processing here. stop this game or i get you blacklisted on debian bug tracking system. I do not like such threats when I havn't done anything wrong (according to my knowledge). I was acting exactly as you requested. IMHO you said that reopening should be done only by maintainer or by someone with info that bug had not been dealt with. I'm not a maintainer, but I did have info that bug had not been dealt with, so I reopened the bug with that info. I fail to see any reason to threaten me with blacklisting. IMHO it is you who should've been threatened with blacklisting if anyone, since you have insisted on closing bugs which clearly havn't been fixed. If I did something wrong, IMHO the right response would've been to point out my mistake to me, and not to threaten with blacklisting without giving any reason for it. it is up to the maintainer to decide if that is closed or not. If maintainer decides that bug must not be reopened anymore, that should be mentioned in the bug-report. -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#242866: Processed: info that it has *not* been dealt with
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:31:40PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote: I'm not a maintainer, but I did have info that bug had not been dealt with, so I reopened the bug with that info. I see that you sent info, but only to the BTS control bot, which prevents it from being reflected in the bug log. I suggest you re-send it. -- Robert Millan GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383403: Processed: info that it has *not* been dealt with
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:03:39AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:31:40PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote: I'm not a maintainer, but I did have info that bug had not been dealt with, so I reopened the bug with that info. I see that you sent info, but only to the BTS control bot, which prevents it from being reflected in the bug log. I suggest you re-send it. Btw, as for this BTS ping-pong game, Max asked that you file separate bugs instead of reopening this one. This doesn't sound like an unreasonable request, so why not just do that? It's probably helpful to the maintainers to have a separate bug for each violation. I can imagine that working with one [1] huge report while trying to actually fix stuff can be a PITA. [1] well, actually a few merged reports, but it amounts to the same. -- Robert Millan GPLv2 I know my rights; I want my phone call! DRM What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
