Bug#670367: pu: package coolkey/1.1.0-6 debdiff attached

2012-04-26 Thread A. Maitland Bottoms
Proposed debdiff for coolkey 1.1.0-6+squeeze1 is attached.
Patches are the same from coolkey 1.1.0-12 in testing, but
added to debian/patches using dpatch since 1.1.0-6 used dpatch.
Same source tarball coolkey_1.1.0.orig.tar.gz in testing and stable.

- -Maitland
[ATTACHMENT ~/coolkeyspu.debdiff, text/plain]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk+ZupQACgkQkwbJvNrxBUy2AgCeNKRQwm2pJ/dzqJ+4Z4KyR5d9
6RQAn3xuYxY6FCrDUaTko8Lv8itJ4lDc
=p8CR
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


Bug#670367: pu: package coolkey/1.1.0-6 debdiff attached

2012-04-26 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 17:16 -0400, A. Maitland Bottoms wrote:
> Proposed debdiff for coolkey 1.1.0-6+squeeze1 is attached.

I think something may not have gone according to plan there.  What was
actually attached was just:

> plain text document attachment (coolkeyspu.debdiff.asc)
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEABECAAYFAk+ZupQACgkQkwbJvNrxBUy2AgCeNKRQwm2pJ/dzqJ+4Z4KyR5d9
> 6RQAn3xuYxY6FCrDUaTko8Lv8itJ4lDc
> =p8CR
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

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/1335475580.28116.9.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#670367: pu: package coolkey/1.1.0-6 debdiff attached

2012-04-28 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 18:08 -0400, A. Maitland Bottoms wrote:
> +coolkey (1.1.0-6+squeeze1) stable; urgency=low
> +
> +  * updated to follow the new Card Compatibility Container (CCC) 
> specification
> +to support recently issued smartcards in Debian stable. (Closes: #670367)

Please don't close release.debian.org bugs in your changelog; they'll
get closed once the package has been included in a point release.  If
there's a bug report asking for support for the cards to be added, that
{c,sh}ould be used instead.

> +  * debian/patches/
> +06_machdep_cpp_CVE-2007-4129.dpatch
> +07_coolkey_latest.dpatch
> +08_coolkey_simple_bugs.dpatch
> +09_coolkey_thread_fix.dpatch
> +10_coolkey_cac_rhl5.dpatch
> +11_empty_certificates.dpatch
> +12_pcscd_restarting.dpatch

Please forgive my possible ignorance of the field, but are all of the
above patches strictly required in order to support the new format?  If
not then a description of what each patch does and why it's included
would be useful, both in the changelog but also in this thread if it's
more involved.

Actually, that description might be handy in any case - for instance one
of the patch names references CVE-2007-4129, but
http://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2007-4129 indicates that
the package in stable isn't affected.

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/1335623816.4844.45.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Bug#670367: pu: package coolkey/1.1.0-6 debdiff attached

2012-04-30 Thread A. Maitland Bottoms
> "Adam" == Adam D Barratt  writes:
Adam> Please don't close release.debian.org bugs in your changelog;

OK. I uploaded a revision to the debdiff coolkeyspu2.debdiff
which also includes upstream patch descriptions in debian/changelog.

Adam> are all of the above patches strictly required in order to
Adam> support the new format?

Well, not only to support the new format, but there were also cases
that resulted in the coolkey plugin crashing the user's browser that
seem equally worthy of inclusion of patches fixing those known issues.

The coolkey-latest patch set in Debian packages is adopted from the
Fedora coolkey srpm patch set. In RHEL this patch is composed of three
patches: coolkey-cac.fix, coolkey-safenet and coolkey-1.1.0-gemalto.64k.

I'm pretty sure the threading fix is most important when used with
Java applications in the browser. There is an important and widely-used
web application enabled by this capability.

The coolkey_cac_rhl5 is the new card format that motivates this update,
and is an improvement over the Fedora coolkey-cac-1 patch.
This capability was added to RHEL:
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2011-0111.html
and this likely will fix the Ubuntu bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/coolkey/+bug/654400

The empty_certificates and pcscd_restarting avoid crashing the
browser that uses the coolkey plugin.


Adam> Actually, that description might be handy in any case - for instance one
Adam> of the patch names references CVE-2007-4129, but
Adam> http://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2007-4129 indicates that
Adam> the package in stable isn't affected.

Listing that in the current changelog stanze was my mistake - I included that
patch back in coolkey 1.1.0-3 uploaded in 2007, and that patch is already in
Debian's stable release.

-Maitland



-- 
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/20383.5410.985184.880...@airborne.nrl.navy.mil



Bug#670367: pu: package coolkey/1.1.0-6 debdiff attached

2012-05-02 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 20:46 -0400, A. Maitland Bottoms wrote:
> OK. The handling of auto* tools in the coolkey 1.1.0-6 package in stable
> means that the clean target in debian/rules doesn't restore the files
> to pre-built state. So there was too much autotools cruft in the 
> previous coolkeyspu2.debdiff. Please ignore it.
> 
> The attached coolkeyspu3.debdiff is much closer to the first atttempt,
> while still elaborating upstream patch descriptions as requested.

Thanks for that.

Even accounting for the patch overhead, the diff is still somewhat
larger than most we'd usually handle via proposed-updates.  That's not
necessarily a blocker in and of itself, but we are rapidly approaching
the cut-off point for the next point release and I don't think I'm
likely to have time to do a proper review myself before that point.
Bearing that in mind I'm afraid it's possible that the changes might
need to be looked at for 6.0.6 rather than the upcoming 6.0.5.

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/1335996774.24513.37.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org