NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: wireless-regdb_2016.06.10-1~deb8u1_multi.changes ACCEPT
Bug#850154: jessie-pu: package nvidia-graphics-modules/340.101+3.16.0+1
On 2017-01-08 23:06, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Sadly the i386 package isn't getting built, as the buildds can't install > non-free build-dependencies. (So I assume this happens every time, but I > forgot.) I know and usually upload both amd64 and i386 binary packages together, but I ran out of time yesterday. Just uploaded the missing i386 build. Andreas
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: nvidia-graphics-modules_340.101+3.16.0+1_i386.changes ACCEPT
binutils on mips*
On 01/08/2017 11:40 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 08.01.2017 14:29, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: >> Matthias: this bug is stopping a lot of packages from migrating and in doing >> so near the freeze is hurting many teams (and their users!) like the Qt/KDE >> one, so I'm planning to NMU it to the last working version. >> >> Do we know which was the last version to properly work on mips*? Is there >> any >> drawback in going back to that version? >> >> Of course if you have a better course of action suitable for a fast fix, >> I'll >> be glad to read it. > > Please don't. I'm fine to apply work arounds for port architectures, but not > for release architectures (I didn't decide on this status). The binutils > update > plan was announced last June [1], and I plan to stick to it. At least one of > the mips toolchain maintainers (out of the five who committed to in the > architecture qualification process) seems to address RC issues, and according > to > the upstream issue, there's work in progress. > Work in progress is not enough. This has been filed almost two months ago, and keeping an RC issue in the toolchain open for this long right around freeze time is irresponsible on your part, so please don't block others fixing it if you don't want to apply a workaround yourself. (I'm also disappointed that none of the mips porters saw fit to get this fixed in sid sooner.) IMO this bug needs to be resolved this week, one way or another. Cheers, Julien
Re: binutils on mips*
On lunes, 9 de enero de 2017 11:51:14 ART Julien Cristau wrote: > On 01/08/2017 11:40 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > > On 08.01.2017 14:29, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > >> Matthias: this bug is stopping a lot of packages from migrating and in > >> doing so near the freeze is hurting many teams (and their users!) like > >> the Qt/KDE one, so I'm planning to NMU it to the last working version. > >> > >> Do we know which was the last version to properly work on mips*? Is there > >> any drawback in going back to that version? > >> > >> Of course if you have a better course of action suitable for a fast fix, > >> I'll be glad to read it. > > > > Please don't. I'm fine to apply work arounds for port architectures, but > > not for release architectures (I didn't decide on this status). The > > binutils update plan was announced last June [1], and I plan to stick to > > it. At least one of the mips toolchain maintainers (out of the five who > > committed to in the architecture qualification process) seems to address > > RC issues, and according to the upstream issue, there's work in progress. > > Work in progress is not enough. This has been filed almost two months > ago, and keeping an RC issue in the toolchain open for this long right > around freeze time is irresponsible on your part, so please don't block > others fixing it if you don't want to apply a workaround yourself. (I'm > also disappointed that none of the mips porters saw fit to get this > fixed in sid sooner.) > > IMO this bug needs to be resolved this week, one way or another. As just said on irc: sorry for doing the upload but your mail got into spam. That being said we need a fix for this issue soon. It's also stopping other fixes to enter testing. I understand that you don't decide which archs are or not release archs, but please do not stand on the way of other developers trying to do their work, specially when upstream themselves said that we should take one of the two proposed work arounds in the meantime. Let me be clear: as long as we don't know if this bug is going to get solved on time we are wasting our time trying to fix other stuff, specially if the fix is not applied. -- http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=56 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: binutils on mips*
Hi, On 09/01/17 10:51, Julien Cristau wrote: > On 01/08/2017 11:40 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 08.01.2017 14:29, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: >>> Matthias: this bug is stopping a lot of packages from migrating and in >>> doing >>> so near the freeze is hurting many teams (and their users!) like the Qt/KDE >>> one, so I'm planning to NMU it to the last working version. >>> >>> Do we know which was the last version to properly work on mips*? Is there >>> any >>> drawback in going back to that version? >>> >>> Of course if you have a better course of action suitable for a fast fix, >>> I'll >>> be glad to read it. >> >> Please don't. I'm fine to apply work arounds for port architectures, but not >> for release architectures (I didn't decide on this status). The binutils >> update >> plan was announced last June [1], and I plan to stick to it. At least one of >> the mips toolchain maintainers (out of the five who committed to in the >> architecture qualification process) seems to address RC issues, and >> according to >> the upstream issue, there's work in progress. >> > Work in progress is not enough. This has been filed almost two months > ago, and keeping an RC issue in the toolchain open for this long right > around freeze time is irresponsible on your part, so please don't block > others fixing it if you don't want to apply a workaround yourself. (I'm > also disappointed that none of the mips porters saw fit to get this > fixed in sid sooner.) As a MIPS porter, I'm not really sure what more I could have done about this bug. I provided a patch in November and it still hasn't been fixed in Debian. I do not control upstream binutils and cannot make them commit anything. Occasionally I've been pinging Maciej, but nothing has happened (though he cannot be blamed for the situation Debian finds itself in). What was I supposed to do? James signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: binutils on mips*
On 01/09/2017 02:13 PM, James Cowgill wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/01/17 10:51, Julien Cristau wrote: >> On 01/08/2017 11:40 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> On 08.01.2017 14:29, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: Matthias: this bug is stopping a lot of packages from migrating and in doing so near the freeze is hurting many teams (and their users!) like the Qt/KDE one, so I'm planning to NMU it to the last working version. Do we know which was the last version to properly work on mips*? Is there any drawback in going back to that version? Of course if you have a better course of action suitable for a fast fix, I'll be glad to read it. >>> >>> Please don't. I'm fine to apply work arounds for port architectures, but >>> not >>> for release architectures (I didn't decide on this status). The binutils >>> update >>> plan was announced last June [1], and I plan to stick to it. At least one >>> of >>> the mips toolchain maintainers (out of the five who committed to in the >>> architecture qualification process) seems to address RC issues, and >>> according to >>> the upstream issue, there's work in progress. >>> >> Work in progress is not enough. This has been filed almost two months >> ago, and keeping an RC issue in the toolchain open for this long right >> around freeze time is irresponsible on your part, so please don't block >> others fixing it if you don't want to apply a workaround yourself. (I'm >> also disappointed that none of the mips porters saw fit to get this >> fixed in sid sooner.) > > As a MIPS porter, I'm not really sure what more I could have done about > this bug. I provided a patch in November and it still hasn't been fixed > in Debian. I do not control upstream binutils and cannot make them > commit anything. Occasionally I've been pinging Maciej, but nothing has > happened (though he cannot be blamed for the situation Debian finds > itself in). What was I supposed to do? > Either convince Matthias to apply a fix to Debian's binutils package, or NMU it. Cheers, Julien
Re: binutils on mips*
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:19:44PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > itself in). What was I supposed to do? > Either convince Matthias to apply a fix to Debian's binutils package, or > NMU it. wait, what? either convince the maintainer to do something or if the maintainer stays unconvinced then one should ignore that and NMU? that does not compute well. -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: binutils on mips*
On 01/09/2017 02:27 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:19:44PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: >>> itself in). What was I supposed to do? >> Either convince Matthias to apply a fix to Debian's binutils package, or >> NMU it. > > wait, what? either convince the maintainer to do something or if the > maintainer stays unconvinced then one should ignore that and NMU? > This is not about unconvinced it's about unilaterally blocking 3 ports you don't like in the hope it'll get those ports removed from the release. I don't think we should accept that. Cheers, Julien
Re: binutils on mips*
On 01/09/2017 02:30 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: > On 01/09/2017 02:27 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:19:44PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: itself in). What was I supposed to do? >>> Either convince Matthias to apply a fix to Debian's binutils package, or >>> NMU it. >> >> wait, what? either convince the maintainer to do something or if the >> maintainer stays unconvinced then one should ignore that and NMU? >> > This is not about unconvinced it's about unilaterally blocking 3 ports > you don't like in the hope it'll get those ports removed from the > release. I don't think we should accept that. > (And "a fix" could be "revert the package to a version before the breakage", if the objection is to applying a patch before it's committed upstream; but I'm not sure how much weight that objection has anyway, given the amount of "apply proposed patch" going on in binutils' Debian changelog) Julien
logtools status
https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=logtools https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=800258 Logtools was out of testing due to bug 800258 which I had fixed but forgotten to mention in the changelog. Why is it still out of testing now? Should I just upload a new version with changes to the version number and an entry about the bug being fixed? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: base-files_8+deb8u7_amd64.changes ACCEPT
Re: logtools status
On 01/09/2017 02:26 PM, Russell Coker wrote: > https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=logtools > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=800258 > > Logtools was out of testing due to bug 800258 which I had fixed but forgotten > to mention in the changelog. Why is it still out of testing now? > > Should I just upload a new version with changes to the version number and an > entry about the bug being fixed? > Hi Russell, - bug 800258 is not properly closed with a version; that should be fixed, but isn't the reason logtools is not in testing - per https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/01/msg2.html new source packages aren't added to stretch anymore. Cheers, Julien
Re: binutils on mips*
On lunes, 9 de enero de 2017 14:19:44 ART Julien Cristau wrote: [snip] > Either convince Matthias to apply a fix to Debian's binutils package, or > NMU it. I've tried it and none of them worked so far. What's next then? TC? I would really not want to go that way, and considering the time it takes the TC to have a ruling we will be already working on buster. Is there anything else one can do here? -- Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time. Linus Benedict Torvalds. Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Do we know the last binutils version it used to work?
On domingo, 8 de enero de 2017 23:40:00 ART Matthias Klose wrote: > The > binutils update plan was announced last June [1], and I plan to stick to > it. > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2016/06/msg7.html The binutils update plan says: Expecting binutils 2.27 (or maybe binutils 2.28) for stretch. binutils 2.27 will be uploaded to unstable after the GCC defaults change. We had binutils 2.27 which did not cause the issue and no technical reason why we *need* 2.28. Would you mind stating it? -- Combata las características. Si una característica no es absolutamente esencial, descártela, especialmente si tiene el mismo efecto que se puede alcanzar mediante la combinación de otras características. Andrew S. Tanenbaum, de su libro "Computer Networks" Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: logtools status
If logtools had a diff.gz file for the changes in question would it get in? If so can I upload a version like that? On 10 January 2017 12:48:39 am LHDT, Julien Cristau wrote: >On 01/09/2017 02:26 PM, Russell Coker wrote: >> https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=logtools >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=800258 >> >> Logtools was out of testing due to bug 800258 which I had fixed but >forgotten >> to mention in the changelog. Why is it still out of testing now? >> >> Should I just upload a new version with changes to the version number >and an >> entry about the bug being fixed? >> >Hi Russell, > >- bug 800258 is not properly closed with a version; that should be >fixed, but isn't the reason logtools is not in testing >- per >https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/01/msg2.html >new >source packages aren't added to stretch anymore. > >Cheers, >Julien -- Sent from my Nexus 6P with K-9 Mail.
Re: logtools status
On 01/09/2017 04:50 PM, Russell Coker wrote: > If logtools had a diff.gz file for the changes in question would it get in? > If so can I upload a version like that? > No, it would still be a new source package (for stretch), so wouldn't be a candidate. Cheers, Julien
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: base-files_8+deb8u7_arm64.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: base-files_8+deb8u7_armel.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: base-files_8+deb8u7_armhf.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: base-files_8+deb8u7_i386.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: base-files_8+deb8u7_mips.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: base-files_8+deb8u7_powerpc.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: base-files_8+deb8u7_ppc64el.changes ACCEPT Processing changes file: base-files_8+deb8u7_s390x.changes ACCEPT
SAIA DO ALUGUEL - COMPRE SEU APARTAMENTO AGORA - Zero de entrada
TENDA CONSTRUTORA - APARTAMENTO MINHA CASA MINHA VIDA - Á. SANTA - COSMOS, N. IGUAÇU - CAMPO GRANDE E VÁRIAS OUTRAS REGIÕES DO RIO DE JANEIRO RIO DE JANEIRO LIGUE AGORA: 4003-6289 LANÇAMENTO, PRONTO PARA MORAR - ENTRADA PARTIR DE ZERO LIGUE AGORA E SAIBA MAIS: 4003-6289
Re: logtools status
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 04:57:24PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On 01/09/2017 04:50 PM, Russell Coker wrote: > > If logtools had a diff.gz file for the changes in question would it get in? > > If so can I upload a version like that? > > > No, it would still be a new source package (for stretch), so wouldn't be > a candidate. Your only chances to get it in would have been to: * properly close the bug in the changelog * properly manually close the bug in the BTS *before* the 5th of Jan Crucially, you managed to fail both. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: base-files_8+deb8u7_mipsel.changes ACCEPT
Bug#850750: unblock: firejail/0.9.44.4-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package firejail firejail 0.9.44.4-1 contains fixes for 3 CVEs compared to the version in stretch (CVE-2017-5180, CVE-2017-5206, CVE-2017-5207). Please lower the migration time for it. Kind regards, Reiner unblock firejail/0.9.44.4-1 diff -Nru firejail-0.9.44.2/configure firejail-0.9.44.4/configure --- firejail-0.9.44.2/configure 2016-12-02 14:18:09.0 +0100 +++ firejail-0.9.44.4/configure 2017-01-07 13:58:37.0 +0100 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ #! /bin/sh # Guess values for system-dependent variables and create Makefiles. -# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69 for firejail 0.9.44.2. +# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69 for firejail 0.9.44.4. # # Report bugs to . # @@ -580,8 +580,8 @@ # Identity of this package. PACKAGE_NAME='firejail' PACKAGE_TARNAME='firejail' -PACKAGE_VERSION='0.9.44.2' -PACKAGE_STRING='firejail 0.9.44.2' +PACKAGE_VERSION='0.9.44.4' +PACKAGE_STRING='firejail 0.9.44.4' PACKAGE_BUGREPORT='netblu...@yahoo.com' PACKAGE_URL='http://firejail.wordpress.com' @@ -1259,7 +1259,7 @@ # Omit some internal or obsolete options to make the list less imposing. # This message is too long to be a string in the A/UX 3.1 sh. cat <<_ACEOF -\`configure' configures firejail 0.9.44.2 to adapt to many kinds of systems. +\`configure' configures firejail 0.9.44.4 to adapt to many kinds of systems. Usage: $0 [OPTION]... [VAR=VALUE]... @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ if test -n "$ac_init_help"; then case $ac_init_help in - short | recursive ) echo "Configuration of firejail 0.9.44.2:";; + short | recursive ) echo "Configuration of firejail 0.9.44.4:";; esac cat <<\_ACEOF @@ -1424,7 +1424,7 @@ test -n "$ac_init_help" && exit $ac_status if $ac_init_version; then cat <<\_ACEOF -firejail configure 0.9.44.2 +firejail configure 0.9.44.4 generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69 Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. @@ -1726,7 +1726,7 @@ This file contains any messages produced by compilers while running configure, to aid debugging if configure makes a mistake. -It was created by firejail $as_me 0.9.44.2, which was +It was created by firejail $as_me 0.9.44.4, which was generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69. Invocation command line was $ $0 $@ @@ -4303,7 +4303,7 @@ # report actual input values of CONFIG_FILES etc. instead of their # values after options handling. ac_log=" -This file was extended by firejail $as_me 0.9.44.2, which was +This file was extended by firejail $as_me 0.9.44.4, which was generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69. Invocation command line was CONFIG_FILES= $CONFIG_FILES @@ -4357,7 +4357,7 @@ cat >>$CONFIG_STATUS <<_ACEOF || ac_write_fail=1 ac_cs_config="`$as_echo "$ac_configure_args" | sed 's/^ //; s/[\\""\`\$]/&/g'`" ac_cs_version="\\ -firejail config.status 0.9.44.2 +firejail config.status 0.9.44.4 configured by $0, generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69, with options \\"\$ac_cs_config\\" diff -Nru firejail-0.9.44.2/configure.ac firejail-0.9.44.4/configure.ac --- firejail-0.9.44.2/configure.ac 2016-12-02 14:17:36.0 +0100 +++ firejail-0.9.44.4/configure.ac 2017-01-07 13:57:38.0 +0100 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ AC_PREREQ([2.68]) -AC_INIT(firejail, 0.9.44.2, netblu...@yahoo.com, , http://firejail.wordpress.com) +AC_INIT(firejail, 0.9.44.4, netblu...@yahoo.com, , http://firejail.wordpress.com) AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([src/firejail/main.c]) #AC_CONFIG_HEADERS([config.h]) diff -Nru firejail-0.9.44.2/debian/changelog firejail-0.9.44.4/debian/changelog --- firejail-0.9.44.2/debian/changelog 2016-12-04 21:44:08.0 +0100 +++ firejail-0.9.44.4/debian/changelog 2017-01-07 20:24:40.0 +0100 @@ -1,3 +1,24 @@ +firejail (0.9.44.4-1) unstable; urgency=high + + * New upstream release. +- Security fixes for: CVE-2017-5180, CVE-2017-5206, CVE-2017-5207 + (Closes: #850528, #850558) + * Drop patches applied upstream. + + -- Reiner Herrmann Sat, 07 Jan 2017 20:24:40 +0100 + +firejail (0.9.44.2-3) unstable; urgency=high + + * Add followup fix for CVE-2017-5180 (Closes: #850160). + + -- Reiner Herrmann Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:44:25 +0100 + +firejail (0.9.44.2-2) unstable; urgency=high + + * Add upstream fix for CVE-2017-5180 (Closes: #850160). + + -- Reiner Herrmann Wed, 04 Jan 2017 23:56:30 +0100 + firejail (0.9.44.2-1) unstable; urgency=medium * New upstream release. diff -Nru firejail-0.9.44.2/platform/rpm/old-mkrpm.sh firejail-0.9.44.4/platform/rpm/old-mkrpm.sh --- firejail-0.9.44.2/platform/rpm/old-mkrpm.sh 2016-12-03 20:14:29.0 +0100 +++ firejail-0.9.44.4/platform/rpm/old-mkrpm.sh 2017-01-07 17:43:11.0 +0100 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ #!/bin/bash -VERSION="0.9.44.2" +VERSION="0.9.44.4" rm -fr ~/rpmbuild rm -f firejail-$VERSION-1.x86_64.rpm @@ -458,6 +458,9 @@ chmod u+s /usr/bin/firejail %changelog +* Sat Jan 7 2017 netblue30 0.9.44.4-1 + - security release + * Sat D
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: qtbase-opensource-src_5.3.2+dfsg-4+deb8u2_antistupidmaintainer.changes ACCEPT
Bug#850754: RM: moodle/2.7.17+dfsg-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Please remove moodle from testing, it was reintroduced by the recennt BTS hiccup and was meant to kept out.
Bug#850755: RM: nagios3/3.5.1.dfsg-2.2
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm nagios3 was removed from unstable, but for some reason is still in testing, please remove it from there as well. Cheers, Moritz
Bug#850770: RM: hhvm/3.12.11+dfsg-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Hi, please remove hhvm from testing. HHVM is still undergoing rapid changes and the current 3.12.x series is already out of upstream support. We can reconsider for buster. (Not filing an RC bug since it can't reenter after being removed at this point anyway) Cheers, Moritz
Bug#850770: RM: hhvm/3.12.11+dfsg-1
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:38:58AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > please remove hhvm from testing. HHVM is still undergoing rapid changes and > the current 3.12.x series is already out of upstream support. We can > reconsider for buster. We've discussed this with Moritz already but for the record and in case it matters: I fully support this, with my HHVM maintainer hat on. Regards, Faidon
Bug#850770: marked as done (RM: hhvm/3.12.11+dfsg-1)
Your message dated Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:23:00 + with message-id <502d2ad4-22c0-b4f8-83cf-9be702006...@thykier.net> and subject line Re: Bug#850770: RM: hhvm/3.12.11+dfsg-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #850770, regarding RM: hhvm/3.12.11+dfsg-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 850770: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=850770 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Hi, please remove hhvm from testing. HHVM is still undergoing rapid changes and the current 3.12.x series is already out of upstream support. We can reconsider for buster. (Not filing an RC bug since it can't reenter after being removed at this point anyway) Cheers, Moritz --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Faidon Liambotis: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:38:58AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >> please remove hhvm from testing. HHVM is still undergoing rapid changes and >> the current 3.12.x series is already out of upstream support. We can >> reconsider for buster. > > We've discussed this with Moritz already but for the record and in case > it matters: I fully support this, with my HHVM maintainer hat on. > > Regards, > Faidon > Thanks for confirming, I have added a hint for removing the package from testing. Thanks, ~Niels--- End Message ---
Bug#850754: marked as done (RM: moodle/2.7.17+dfsg-1)
Your message dated Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:27:00 + with message-id <0ad5e3f6-5349-634e-6c79-08dbe4a7d...@thykier.net> and subject line Re: Bug#850754: RM: moodle/2.7.17+dfsg-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #850754, regarding RM: moodle/2.7.17+dfsg-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 850754: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=850754 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Please remove moodle from testing, it was reintroduced by the recennt BTS hiccup and was meant to kept out. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Moritz Muehlenhoff: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: rm > > Please remove moodle from testing, it was reintroduced by the recennt BTS > hiccup and was meant to kept out. > Thanks, removal hint added. ~Niels--- End Message ---
Bug#850750: marked as done (unblock: firejail/0.9.44.4-1)
Your message dated Tue, 10 Jan 2017 06:42:00 + with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#850750: unblock: firejail/0.9.44.4-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #850750, regarding unblock: firejail/0.9.44.4-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 850750: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=850750 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package firejail firejail 0.9.44.4-1 contains fixes for 3 CVEs compared to the version in stretch (CVE-2017-5180, CVE-2017-5206, CVE-2017-5207). Please lower the migration time for it. Kind regards, Reiner unblock firejail/0.9.44.4-1 diff -Nru firejail-0.9.44.2/configure firejail-0.9.44.4/configure --- firejail-0.9.44.2/configure 2016-12-02 14:18:09.0 +0100 +++ firejail-0.9.44.4/configure 2017-01-07 13:58:37.0 +0100 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ #! /bin/sh # Guess values for system-dependent variables and create Makefiles. -# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69 for firejail 0.9.44.2. +# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69 for firejail 0.9.44.4. # # Report bugs to . # @@ -580,8 +580,8 @@ # Identity of this package. PACKAGE_NAME='firejail' PACKAGE_TARNAME='firejail' -PACKAGE_VERSION='0.9.44.2' -PACKAGE_STRING='firejail 0.9.44.2' +PACKAGE_VERSION='0.9.44.4' +PACKAGE_STRING='firejail 0.9.44.4' PACKAGE_BUGREPORT='netblu...@yahoo.com' PACKAGE_URL='http://firejail.wordpress.com' @@ -1259,7 +1259,7 @@ # Omit some internal or obsolete options to make the list less imposing. # This message is too long to be a string in the A/UX 3.1 sh. cat <<_ACEOF -\`configure' configures firejail 0.9.44.2 to adapt to many kinds of systems. +\`configure' configures firejail 0.9.44.4 to adapt to many kinds of systems. Usage: $0 [OPTION]... [VAR=VALUE]... @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ if test -n "$ac_init_help"; then case $ac_init_help in - short | recursive ) echo "Configuration of firejail 0.9.44.2:";; + short | recursive ) echo "Configuration of firejail 0.9.44.4:";; esac cat <<\_ACEOF @@ -1424,7 +1424,7 @@ test -n "$ac_init_help" && exit $ac_status if $ac_init_version; then cat <<\_ACEOF -firejail configure 0.9.44.2 +firejail configure 0.9.44.4 generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69 Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. @@ -1726,7 +1726,7 @@ This file contains any messages produced by compilers while running configure, to aid debugging if configure makes a mistake. -It was created by firejail $as_me 0.9.44.2, which was +It was created by firejail $as_me 0.9.44.4, which was generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69. Invocation command line was $ $0 $@ @@ -4303,7 +4303,7 @@ # report actual input values of CONFIG_FILES etc. instead of their # values after options handling. ac_log=" -This file was extended by firejail $as_me 0.9.44.2, which was +This file was extended by firejail $as_me 0.9.44.4, which was generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69. Invocation command line was CONFIG_FILES= $CONFIG_FILES @@ -4357,7 +4357,7 @@ cat >>$CONFIG_STATUS <<_ACEOF || ac_write_fail=1 ac_cs_config="`$as_echo "$ac_configure_args" | sed 's/^ //; s/[\\""\`\$]/&/g'`" ac_cs_version="\\ -firejail config.status 0.9.44.2 +firejail config.status 0.9.44.4 configured by $0, generated by GNU Autoconf 2.69, with options \\"\$ac_cs_config\\" diff -Nru firejail-0.9.44.2/configure.ac firejail-0.9.44.4/configure.ac --- firejail-0.9.44.2/configure.ac 2016-12-02 14:17:36.0 +0100 +++ firejail-0.9.44.4/configure.ac 2017-01-07 13:57:38.0 +0100 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ AC_PREREQ([2.68]) -AC_INIT(firejail, 0.9.44.2, netblu...@yahoo.com, , http://firejail.wordpress.com) +AC_INIT(firejail, 0.9.44.4, netblu...@yahoo.com, , http://firejail.wordpress.com) AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR([src/firejail/main.c]) #AC_CONFIG_HEADERS([config.h]) diff -Nru firejail-0.9.44.2/debian/changelog firejail-0.9.44.4/debian/changelog --- firejail-0.9.44.2/debian/changelog 2016-12-04 21:44:08.0 +0100 +++ firejail-0.9.44.4/debian/changelog 2017-01-07 20:24:40.0 +0100 @@ -1,3 +1,24 @@ +firejail (0.9.44.4-1) unstable; urgency=high + + * New upstream release. +- Security fixes for: CVE-2017-5180, CVE-2017-5206, CVE-2017-5207 + (Closes: #850528, #850558) + * Drop patches applied upstream. + + -- Reiner Herrmann Sat, 07 Jan 2017 20:24:40 +0100 + +firejail (0.9.44.2-3) unstable; urgency=high + + * Add followup fix for CVE-2017-5180 (Closes: #850160). + + -- Reiner Herrmann Fri, 06 J
Bug#850755: RM: nagios3/3.5.1.dfsg-2.2
On 01/09/2017 11:33 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > nagios3 was removed from unstable, but for some reason is still in testing, > please remove it from there as well. It still has reverse dependencies in testing, specifically nagios2mantis is listed in the britney output [0] which `dak rm -Rn -s testing nagios3` also lists as the only affected package. nagios2mantis is scheduled for removal from testing on the 14th, as is check-mk but that doesn't have a dependency on nagios3 that keeps it in testing. Having these packages removed from testing explicitly instead of waiting for the autoremoval would be nice, to not have chatter in the bugreport able extend the deadline (although that seems unlikely). [0] https://release.debian.org/britney/update_output.txt Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
