Bug#630201: [kfreebsd-*] please rebuild elfutils/sid, ignoring the 2 known testsuite failures (Re: transition: liblzma 5)
Julien Cristau wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:01:41 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: libdw1 (DWARF parser for elfutils) FTBFS on kfreebsd, needs a bug filed. Apparently that's #570805 (thanks, Jakub). That's a pair of testsuite failures due to a kernel bug and not a regression in elfutils as far as I can tell. kfreebsd buildd admins, is it possible to schedule a rebuild with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck, or would it be better to request that directly in debian/rules as a temporary workaround? (Please forgive my ignorance.) Thanks, Jonathan -- 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/20111029071224.gc8...@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net
Bug#630201: [kfreebsd-*] please rebuild elfutils/sid, ignoring the 2 known testsuite failures (Re: transition: liblzma 5)
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 02:12:25 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Julien Cristau wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:01:41 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: libdw1 (DWARF parser for elfutils) FTBFS on kfreebsd, needs a bug filed. Apparently that's #570805 (thanks, Jakub). That's a pair of testsuite failures due to a kernel bug and not a regression in elfutils as far as I can tell. kfreebsd buildd admins, is it possible to schedule a rebuild with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck, or would it be better to request that directly in debian/rules as a temporary workaround? (Please forgive my ignorance.) I think this should be worked around in the elfutils package. Cheers, Julien -- 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/20111029090742.gw3...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Bug#630201: [kfreebsd-*] please rebuild elfutils/sid, ignoring the 2 known testsuite failures (Re: transition: liblzma 5)
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:07:42AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 02:12:25 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Julien Cristau wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:01:41 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: libdw1 (DWARF parser for elfutils) FTBFS on kfreebsd, needs a bug filed. Apparently that's #570805 (thanks, Jakub). That's a pair of testsuite failures due to a kernel bug and not a regression in elfutils as far as I can tell. kfreebsd buildd admins, is it possible to schedule a rebuild with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck, or would it be better to request that directly in debian/rules as a temporary workaround? (Please forgive my ignorance.) I think this should be worked around in the elfutils package. How do you suggest I work around this? I really don't like to ignore those errors. They're the one that test the platform specific parts. Can I instead suggest someone looks at the kernel and fixes it? It used to work, it works on the porter machines, it just fails on the buidds. Kurt -- 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/20111029093818.ga22...@roeckx.be
Bug#630201: Bug#570805: [kfreebsd-*] please rebuild elfutils/sid, ignoring the 2 known testsuite failures (Re: transition: liblzma 5)
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:07:42AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 02:12:25 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Julien Cristau wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:01:41 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: libdw1 (DWARF parser for elfutils) FTBFS on kfreebsd, needs a bug filed. Apparently that's #570805 (thanks, Jakub). That's a pair of testsuite failures due to a kernel bug and not a regression in elfutils as far as I can tell. kfreebsd buildd admins, is it possible to schedule a rebuild with DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck, or would it be better to request that directly in debian/rules as a temporary workaround? (Please forgive my ignorance.) I think this should be worked around in the elfutils package. How do you suggest I work around this? I really don't like to ignore those errors. They're the one that test the platform specific parts. Can I instead suggest someone looks at the kernel and fixes it? The kernel part is not trivial to solve. It used to work, it works on the porter machines, it just fails on the buidds. It now fails because of the multiple bind mounts needed by schroot. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- 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/20111029094523.gc31...@hall.aurel32.net
Re: Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:25:31PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 11:23:27 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Given this, and if Guillem hasn't responded with a review requiring
further work on the branch by sunday, I will upload dpkg 1.16.2 to
experimental on sunday (October 23th).
snip
I will also ensure that this second upload happens.
NACK on both unreviewed uploads.
Guillem, I'm very much worried about this attitude.
[ Disclaimer: my only data points come from people who have been trying
to get m-a in the archive in the past several months, including the
Release Team and Raphael. I might hence be biased or misinformed. I've
been trying to get your POV in the past weeks without much success,
mainly due to our different availability periods on IRC, so let's have
this discussion here. ]
What worries me is that there is multi-arch work in dpkg, work that has
its origins in Debian. That work is ready enough to be deployed in
popular Debian derivatives such as Ubuntu, but is not in Debian proper
yet. That is bad for Debian morale and should be avoided. Moreover, that
work is also considered ready enough by other dpkg co-maintainers, by
the Release Team, and by various porters, which have all asked multiple
times to have that work in the Debian archive.
Looking from the outside, the only blockers for that to happen are your
NACK-s. Those NACKs have been posted repeatedly, together with (largely
disattended) promises of timely review, uploads, and git push-es of
yours.
Accepting this attitude would be very bad for Debian, because it is at
stake with the way we usually do things (AKA do-ocracy). Accepting
this attitude would indeed mean acknowledging that people who have
earned respect in the past as maintainers can stall work done by others
by simply saying NACK, without having to contribute alternative
solutions and/or show progress. We cannot allow that to happen in
Debian.
I'm very happy to see that some git push -es of yours are now flowing
into dpkg.git. I thank you for that. But it also seems that is happening
way slower than what is needed. (And TBH the thought of you hurrying up
now in doing such a work is worrisome in its own right.)
Please be a team player. If you can make it, that's great, we will all
benefit from extra eyes on the code, especially if they are experienced
eyes as yours. But if you cannot make it, please step back and allow for
uploads to happen. In case you are not willing to do that, I'd be in
favor of having other dpkg co-maintainers doing the uploads the Release
Team is asking for. After all, there is nothing that cannot be fixed
later in subsequent uploads.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed stable update: recoll
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 17:21 +0530, Kartik Mistry wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: The version information for #614760 suggests that it also affects testing and unstable currently. If that's not correct, please mark it as closed in an appropriate version; otherwise, please fix it in unstable first. Closed it in testing/unstable, since this only affects stable release. Thanks. Please feel free to go ahead with the upload. Regards, Adam -- 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/1319896139.26970.1.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: [SRM] shorewall{,6,-lite,6-lite} update for stable?
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 16:35 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
As a result of #646112, it has come to my attention that I made a
packaging error in the shorewall{,6,-lite,6-lite} packages that released
with Squeeze. Incidentally, the problem also affects shorewall-lite and
shorewall6-lite in Sid. I have already fixed the latest version in the
git repository and the fix will go into unstable at the next upload.
[...]
Would this be something that the stable release manager's might consider
for the next point release? If so, can I proceed wth an upload to
s-p-u?
I'd like to see debdiffs before a final ACK, but I'd be inclined to say
yes based on the information provided so far.
Does this also affect the version of shorewall-lite in lenny?
Regards,
Adam
--
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/1319897527.26970.6.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: Bug#622146: nfs-common: compatibility between squeeze and sid broken
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 09:05 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: [...] Adam == Adam D Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes: Adam The krb5 package was uploaded and I've (somewhat belatedly) Adam marked it for acceptance at the next dinstall. What's the Adam status of the nfs-utils upload? [...] Anyway, uploaded now. Flagged for acceptance at the next dinstall; thanks. Regards, Adam -- 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/1319898422.26970.12.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#646156: pu: package xorg-server/2:1.7.7-14
tag 646156 + confirmed squeeze thanks On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 21:12 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: there were a couple of CVEs for X recently, that Moritz suggested we fixed through p-u. And an input fix to use 64bit arithmetic to avoid overflows with high resolution devices, that's been sitting upstream in the 1.7 branch since March. (The xquartz change is irrelevant but won't hurt.) With the obvious tidy-up to the changelog, please go ahead; thanks. btw, I'm assuming that many of the additions of: +ClientPtr client = cl-client; are boilerplate, or used in later commits? They often appear not to be used in the provided diff. Regards, Adam -- 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/1319898347.26970.11.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: Bug#646156: pu: package xorg-server/2:1.7.7-14
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tag 646156 + confirmed squeeze Bug #646156 [release.debian.org] pu: package xorg-server/2:1.7.7-14 Added tag(s) squeeze and confirmed. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 646156: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=646156 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- 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/handler.s.c.131989838915684.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Re: [SRM] shorewall{,6,-lite,6-lite} update for stable?
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 03:12:06PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 16:35 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
As a result of #646112, it has come to my attention that I made a
packaging error in the shorewall{,6,-lite,6-lite} packages that released
with Squeeze. Incidentally, the problem also affects shorewall-lite and
shorewall6-lite in Sid. I have already fixed the latest version in the
git repository and the fix will go into unstable at the next upload.
[...]
Would this be something that the stable release manager's might consider
for the next point release? If so, can I proceed wth an upload to
s-p-u?
I'd like to see debdiffs before a final ACK, but I'd be inclined to say
yes based on the information provided so far.
OK. I will prepare the uploads and send the debdiffs for final approval
prior to uploading.
Does this also affect the version of shorewall-lite in lenny?
The lenny version is not affected.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ben, edos-debcheck, arch:all
Hi (especially) Mehdi, I’m wondering why http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/haskell.html lists agda as bad, and I assume that ben considers it a problem if an arch:all package is uninstallable on an architecture, even though the arch:any packages there never have been built. Is that a bug or a feature? I’m not sure what the correct thing to do would be. Maybe something like “ignore arch:all packages from sources that build both arch:all and arch:any packages on architectures where no arch:any packages have been built”. Although such special-casing definitively goes against my sense for aesthetic formalizations :-) Gruß, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#646156: pu: package xorg-server/2:1.7.7-14
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: +commit 03ff880e8bf20cdecaf27f03391ea31545ecc22c +Author: Matthieu Herrb matthieu.he...@laas.fr +Date: Mon Oct 17 22:27:35 2011 +0200 + + Fix CVE-2011-4029: File permission change vulnerability. + + Use fchmod() to change permissions of the lock file instead + of chmod(), thus avoid the race that can be exploited to set + a symbolic link to any file or directory in the system. I wonder if at least this one should be treated with a real urgency? On the surface its an info disclosure issue, which tend to be very low urgency, but it's a pretty bad once since its actually a disclosure of any file on the system (e.g. /etc/shadown), and there is an existing poc exploit: http://vladz.devzero.fr/Xorg-CVE-2011-4029.txt Best wishes, Mike -- 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/CANTw=mnix_bkhmu7gyq+qtzhakzkq0xc46jlbmg2bfhrkqo...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: What worries me is that there is multi-arch work in dpkg, work that has its origins in Debian. That work is ready enough to be deployed in popular Debian derivatives such as Ubuntu, but is not in Debian proper yet. That is bad for Debian morale and should be avoided. Moreover, that work is also considered ready enough by other dpkg co-maintainers, by the Release Team, and by various porters, which have all asked multiple times to have that work in the Debian archive. You could also make a case from a terminological perspective as well. Unstable is where development in Debian is supposed to happen, so it's perfectly acceptable to upload unfinished/unstable changes, and if you happen to break something (at least with dpkg) you'll have hundreds of eyes looking at what you broke and trying to figure out how to fix it. So anyway, don't worry so much about breaking unstable. That's what its there for. Best wishes, Mike -- 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/CANTw=mml9rnfdvmxowzfojft6vdjrhyzfx7bpbqi5brpka8...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#646156: pu: package xorg-server/2:1.7.7-14
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:38:47 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: +commit 03ff880e8bf20cdecaf27f03391ea31545ecc22c +Author: Matthieu Herrb matthieu.he...@laas.fr +Date: Mon Oct 17 22:27:35 2011 +0200 + + Fix CVE-2011-4029: File permission change vulnerability. + + Use fchmod() to change permissions of the lock file instead + of chmod(), thus avoid the race that can be exploited to set + a symbolic link to any file or directory in the system. I wonder if at least this one should be treated with a real urgency? On the surface its an info disclosure issue, which tend to be very low urgency, but it's a pretty bad once since its actually a disclosure of any file on the system (e.g. /etc/shadown), and there is an existing poc exploit: http://vladz.devzero.fr/Xorg-CVE-2011-4029.txt Moritz said use p-u, I'm not going to second-guess him. Cheers, Julien -- 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/20111029185858.ga3...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Bug#646156: pu: package xorg-server/2:1.7.7-14
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 13:38:47 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: +commit 03ff880e8bf20cdecaf27f03391ea31545ecc22c +Author: Matthieu Herrb matthieu.he...@laas.fr +Date: Mon Oct 17 22:27:35 2011 +0200 + + Fix CVE-2011-4029: File permission change vulnerability. + + Use fchmod() to change permissions of the lock file instead + of chmod(), thus avoid the race that can be exploited to set + a symbolic link to any file or directory in the system. I wonder if at least this one should be treated with a real urgency? On the surface its an info disclosure issue, which tend to be very low urgency, but it's a pretty bad once since its actually a disclosure of any file on the system (e.g. /etc/shadown), and there is an existing poc exploit: http://vladz.devzero.fr/Xorg-CVE-2011-4029.txt Moritz said use p-u, I'm not going to second-guess him. This was before the real impact of the issue was clear (I believe), and definitely before the exploit code existed. Personally, I think this needs to get out to squeeze users ASAP. Best wishes, Mike -- 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/CANTw=MM8T-UHFtfB9v_Oo+RG=KisGRXM=4rmczsownh_htk...@mail.gmail.com
NEW changes in proposedupdates
Processing changes file: nfs-utils_1.2.2-4squeeze1_i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: python-django_1.2.3-3+squeeze2_i386.changes ACCEPT -- 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/e1rkexr-00048c...@franck.debian.org
NEW changes in oldproposedupdates
Processing changes file: python-django_1.0.2-1+lenny3_i386.changes ACCEPT -- 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/e1rkexs-00048t...@franck.debian.org
Re: [SRM] shorewall{,6,-lite,6-lite} update for stable?
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:16:00PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
I'd like to see debdiffs before a final ACK, but I'd be inclined to say
yes based on the information provided so far.
OK. I will prepare the uploads and send the debdiffs for final approval
prior to uploading.
Please see attached debdiffs. Please note that for shorewall-lite and
shorewall6-lite I had to include the helpers file from a newer release.
Because of an upstream bug, that file was missing from every release
until 4.4.18.1.
As soon as I receive approval, I will upload.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
diff -Nru shorewall-4.4.11.6/debian/changelog shorewall-4.4.11.6/debian/changelog
--- shorewall-4.4.11.6/debian/changelog 2010-11-28 21:36:22.0 -0500
+++ shorewall-4.4.11.6/debian/changelog 2011-10-29 14:15:28.0 -0400
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+shorewall (4.4.11.6-3+squeeze1) stable-proposed-updates; urgency=low
+
+ * Install missing /usr/share/shorewall/helpers (Closes: #646112)
+
+ -- Roberto C. Sanchez robe...@connexer.com Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:14:21 -0400
+
shorewall (4.4.11.6-3) unstable; urgency=low
* Fix macro.JAP to correct nested macro call.
diff -Nru shorewall-4.4.11.6/debian/patches/debian-changes-4.4.11.6-3 shorewall-4.4.11.6/debian/patches/debian-changes-4.4.11.6-3
--- shorewall-4.4.11.6/debian/patches/debian-changes-4.4.11.6-3 2010-11-28 21:39:09.0 -0500
+++ shorewall-4.4.11.6/debian/patches/debian-changes-4.4.11.6-3 1969-12-31 19:00:00.0 -0500
@@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
-Description: Upstream changes introduced in version 4.4.11.6-3
- This patch has been created by dpkg-source during the package build.
- Here's the last changelog entry, hopefully it gives details on why
- those changes were made:
- .
- shorewall (4.4.11.6-3) unstable; urgency=low
- .
- * Fix macro.JAP to correct nested macro call.
- .
- The person named in the Author field signed this changelog entry.
-Author: Roberto C. Sanchez robe...@connexer.com
-
-The information above should follow the Patch Tagging Guidelines, please
-checkout http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ to learn about the format. Here
-are templates for supplementary fields that you might want to add:
-
-Origin: vendor|upstream|other, url of original patch
-Bug: url in upstream bugtracker
-Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/bugnumber
-Bug-Ubuntu: https://launchpad.net/bugs/bugnumber
-Forwarded: no|not-needed|url proving that it has been forwarded
-Reviewed-By: name and email of someone who approved the patch
-Last-Update: -MM-DD
-
shorewall-4.4.11.6.orig/known_problems.txt
-+++ shorewall-4.4.11.6/known_problems.txt
-@@ -147,3 +147,17 @@
- showed an empty log when issued to one of the -lite packages.
-
- Corrected in Shorewall 4.4.11.6
-+
-+22) If 10 or more interfaces are configured in Complex Traffic Shaping
-+(/etc/shorewall/tcdevices), the following compilation diagnostic
-+is issued:
-+
-+Argument a isn't numeric in sprintf at
-+ /usr/share/shorewall/Shorewall/Config.pm line 893.
-+
-+and an invalid TC configuration is generated.
-+
-+A fix is available at
-+http://shorewall.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=shorewall/shorewall;a=commitdiff;h=20bb781874c739c01b798d2db31b6c1d9cfefe96
-+
-+
shorewall-4.4.11.6.orig/releasenotes.txt
-+++ shorewall-4.4.11.6/releasenotes.txt
-@@ -218,6 +218,17 @@ VI. PROBLEMS CORRECTED AND NEW FEATURE
- I I I. P R O B L E M S C O R R E C T E D I N T H I S R E L E A S E
-
-
-+Post-4.4.11.6
-+
-+1) Previously, if 10 or more interfaces were configured in Complex
-+Traffic Shaping (/etc/shorewall/tcdevices), the following
-+compilation diagnostic was generated:
-+
-+Argument a isn't numeric in sprintf at
-+ /usr/share/shorewall/Shorewall/Config.pm line 893.
-+
-+and an invalid TC configuration was generated.
-+
- 4.4.11.6
-
- 1) The Shorewall-lite and Shorewall6-lite Debian init scripts contained a
shorewall-4.4.11.6.orig/changelog.txt
-+++ shorewall-4.4.11.6/changelog.txt
-@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
-+Changes post 4.4.11.6
-+
-+1) Fix 10+ TC Interfaces.
-+
- Changes in Shorewall 4.4.11.6
-
- 1) Fix log reading in -lite packages.
shorewall-4.4.11.6.orig/Perl/Shorewall/Tc.pm
-+++ shorewall-4.4.11.6/Perl/Shorewall/Tc.pm
-@@ -1279,7 +1279,7 @@ sub setup_traffic_shaping() {
- my $tcref= $tcclasses{$device}{$decimalclassnum};
- my $mark = $tcref-{mark};
- my $devicenumber = in_hexp $devref-{number};
-- my $classid = join( ':', in_hexp $devicenumber, $classnum);
-+ my $classid = join( ':', $devicenumber, $classnum);
- my $rate = $tcref-{rate}kbit;
- my $quantum = calculate_quantum $rate, calculate_r2q( $devref-{out_bandwidth} );
-
-@@ -1304,15 +1304,15 @@ sub setup_traffic_shaping() {
- emit ( [ \$${dev}_mtu -gt $quantum ] quantum=\$${dev}_mtu || quantum=$quantum );
-
3.x kernels fix for the stable module-init-tools
Please approve the updated module-init-tools package, the trivial patch
comes from upstream and has been in testing for months.
diff -u module-init-tools-3.12/debian/changelog
module-init-tools-3.12/debian/changelog
--- module-init-tools-3.12/debian/changelog
+++ module-init-tools-3.12/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+module-init-tools (3.12-2) stable; urgency=low
+
+ * Backported upstream commit 3328d17 to support 3.x kernels.
+
+ -- Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:09:19 +0100
+
module-init-tools (3.12-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release.
diff -u module-init-tools-3.12/debian/patches/series
module-init-tools-3.12/debian/patches/series
--- module-init-tools-3.12/debian/patches/series
+++ module-init-tools-3.12/debian/patches/series
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+commit-3328d17
+
# fixes to be pushed upstream
document_depmod_m
only in patch2:
unchanged:
--- module-init-tools-3.12.orig/debian/patches/commit-3328d17
+++ module-init-tools-3.12/debian/patches/commit-3328d17
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+commit 3328d178247017affd90b7897393699f2f45227d
+Author: Michal Marek mma...@suse.cz
+Date: Mon May 30 15:58:43 2011 +0200
+
+depmod: Handle X.Y kernel versions
+
+What a stupid check.
+
+Signed-off-by: Michal Marek mma...@suse.cz
+Signed-off-by: Jon Masters j...@jonmasters.org
+
+diff --git a/depmod.c b/depmod.c
+index abfb11e..98a5efa 100644
+--- a/depmod.c
b/depmod.c
+@@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ static int is_version_number(const char *version)
+ {
+ unsigned int dummy;
+
+- return (sscanf(version, %u.%u.%u, dummy, dummy, dummy) == 3);
++ return (sscanf(version, %u.%u, dummy, dummy) == 2);
+ }
+
+ static int old_module_version(const char *version)
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
