Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
Is there something missing to go further? -- Yann -- 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/5134b10d.9060...@lagaule.org
Processed: Re: Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
Processing control commands: tag -1 - moreinfo Bug #689147 [release.debian.org] unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1 Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 689147: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=689147 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.b689147.13566449065664.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo Hi, Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 16:53:48 GMT) : On 12/12/2012 03:41 PM, intrigeri wrote: Which means we can now get back to why this update of an embedded library should be unblocked. Why is this update needed? Is the version embedded in testing / in unstable (based on) the same as the one packaged in python-gnupg? this version of Gajim doesn't only fix this embedded library But the version embedded fixes some unhandeled errors, as I told you in the previous mail. Full diff against python-gnupg-0.3.0 attached Thanks for the additional information, I think we now have everything needed to make a well-informed decision! I'm absolutely not sure what is the best thing to do now: 1. unblock the embedded python-gnupg copy to the current copy of Wheezy's python-gnupg + small change that supposedly improves things: take the risk to see a regression in gajim due to changes brought by the library update; 2. revert the embedded python-gnupg copy update: take the risk to make it harder to support serious bugs or security issues that may be found in python-gnupg in the future. I'm slightly lending towards #1, but not too satisfied with it, so I'll let the Release Team make their own opinion on this matter (not that I could do differently, anyway :) Note that, even if this unblock is granted, gajim remains RC-buggy in Wheezy and unstable due to the #693048 security issue. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85fw2ryxnw@boum.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
On 12/27/2012 10:48 PM, intrigeri wrote: Control: tag -1 - moreinfo Hi, Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 16:53:48 GMT) : On 12/12/2012 03:41 PM, intrigeri wrote: Which means we can now get back to why this update of an embedded library should be unblocked. Why is this update needed? Is the version embedded in testing / in unstable (based on) the same as the one packaged in python-gnupg? this version of Gajim doesn't only fix this embedded library But the version embedded fixes some unhandeled errors, as I told you in the previous mail. Full diff against python-gnupg-0.3.0 attached Thanks for the additional information, I think we now have everything needed to make a well-informed decision! I'm absolutely not sure what is the best thing to do now: 1. unblock the embedded python-gnupg copy to the current copy of Wheezy's python-gnupg + small change that supposedly improves things: take the risk to see a regression in gajim due to changes brought by the library update; Have you seen the diff? I don't see what security issue it could cause. But without it, Gajim can traceback, that is a fact. 2. revert the embedded python-gnupg copy update: take the risk to make it harder to support serious bugs or security issues that may be found in python-gnupg in the future. I'm slightly lending towards #1, but not too satisfied with it, so I'll let the Release Team make their own opinion on this matter (not that I could do differently, anyway :) Note that, even if this unblock is granted, gajim remains RC-buggy in Wheezy and unstable due to the #693048 security issue. As all other Gajim versions. Bug is fixed upstream, but not enough tested to be included for the moment. So do what you want, remove Gajim from Debian because of this security issue if you want. Just note that it's now 3 monthes that debian testing users cannot use video in Gajim because 0.15.1 is still blocked. -- Yann -- 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/50dcc58e.9050...@lagaule.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
Hi, Yann Leboulanger wrote (27 Dec 2012 22:02:54 GMT) : On 12/27/2012 10:48 PM, intrigeri wrote: I'm absolutely not sure what is the best thing to do now: 1. unblock the embedded python-gnupg copy to the current copy of Wheezy's python-gnupg + small change that supposedly improves things: take the risk to see a regression in gajim due to changes brought by the library update; Have you seen the diff? I haven't: it's quite big, and most big changes have some potential for regression during freeze time. I'm not saying the probability is high, I'm just stating that a risk does exist, so that the release team can take it into account when they make a decision. I don't see what security issue it could cause. I did not mention anything related to security in the #1 option. (And even if I had, guess what: people generally don't see what security issue they introduce, at the time they do. Sorry for the nitpicking ;) But without it, Gajim can traceback, that is a fact. I'm sorry I missed this important piece of information. Where was I supposed to learn about it? (Not a rhetorical question, I've genuinely searched, and failed to find it in the unblock request -related set of messages. I guess it might be #670243 that is related to GnuPG support, but it's unclear to me if that one was fixed by the modifications made to the embedded pythong-gnupg copy, or by the upgrade thereof.) Note that, even if this unblock is granted, gajim remains RC-buggy in Wheezy and unstable due to the #693048 security issue. [...] So do what you want, remove Gajim from Debian because of this security issue if you want. I think the worst that can happen as a result from this security issue is certainly not removing Gajim from Debian altogether: it's not shipping Gajim in Wheezy, if no package deemed suitable for release is ready on time. I would find it pretty sad, but stable backports are here to fill the hole in such situations. Just note that it's now 3 monthes that debian testing users cannot use video in Gajim because 0.15.1 is still blocked. I'm sorry about that. Please note the fix to this specific bug was ACK'd by a Release Team member mid-October, so it could have been pretty smoothly fixed in Wheezy, had it not been bundled with a bunch of other changes that were less easy to decide upon, by requiring additional information or other changes from your side. I'm sorry the Release Team is overwhelmed with unblock requests, so their delays in replying to this bug report were quite long sometimes: every back'n'forth round-trip then takes time, so the best way to ensure such an unblock request is treated quickly is to only include changes that are evidently freeze-compliant, and document them very well at unblock request time, when this not done in debian/changelog yet. I hope it may help next time! :) Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85sj6rw0yk@boum.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
On 12/28/2012 12:05 AM, intrigeri wrote: Hi, Yann Leboulanger wrote (27 Dec 2012 22:02:54 GMT) : On 12/27/2012 10:48 PM, intrigeri wrote: I'm absolutely not sure what is the best thing to do now: 1. unblock the embedded python-gnupg copy to the current copy of Wheezy's python-gnupg + small change that supposedly improves things: take the risk to see a regression in gajim due to changes brought by the library update; Have you seen the diff? I haven't: it's quite big, and most big changes have some potential for regression during freeze time. I'm not saying the probability is high, I'm just stating that a risk does exist, so that the release team can take it into account when they make a decision. I'm talking about gnupg diff that I attached in my previous mail. it's a 5 line diff or something like that. But without it, Gajim can traceback, that is a fact. I'm sorry I missed this important piece of information. Where was I supposed to learn about it? (Not a rhetorical question, I've genuinely searched, and failed to find it in the unblock request -related set of messages. I guess it might be #670243 that is related to GnuPG support, but it's unclear to me if that one was fixed by the modifications made to the embedded pythong-gnupg copy, or by the upgrade thereof.) I would not have modified it if that didn't fix a bug in the library. It does not handle all messages that GPG can raise. So I added some that Gajim users already encoutered. See https://trac.gajim.org/ticket/7151 I'm sorry about that. Please note the fix to this specific bug was ACK'd by a Release Team member mid-October, so it could have been pretty smoothly fixed in Wheezy, had it not been bundled with a bunch of other changes that were less easy to decide upon, by requiring additional information or other changes from your side. I'm sorry the Release Team is overwhelmed with unblock requests, so their delays in replying to this bug report were quite long sometimes: every back'n'forth round-trip then takes time, so the best way to ensure such an unblock request is treated quickly is to only include changes that are evidently freeze-compliant, and document them very well at unblock request time, when this not done in debian/changelog yet. I hope it may help next time! :) Cheers, I don't blame release team nor anyone else. I know they do their best. I don't understand if you ask me to fix only bugs reported in Gajim or all known bugs in Gajim. I did the second by making this 0.15.1 package, thinking it was the better way to do. It's a minor release, so only a bugfix release. I also asked release team if that was a good idea BEFORE doing the package and got a positive reply. I don't think there will be a next time. After this package will be accepted, I'll find another maintainer. But I finish what I started before, and that's another problem. -- 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/50dcdad7.4040...@lagaule.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
On 12/12/2012 01:37 AM, intrigeri wrote:
Hi,
Yann Leboulanger wrote (14 Oct 2012 16:35:07 GMT) :
On 10/14/2012 06:18 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
FWIW, it _is_ packaged as python-gnupg.
right, but we have a small change in it for logging:
logger = logging.getLogger('gajim.c.gnupg')
Looks like this should be added to the embedded code copies list,
regardless of the minor diff:
https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies
This can also be in Gajim itself, and I'll do that for next release.
--
Yann
--
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/50c838ea.9090...@lagaule.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
Hi, Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 07:57:30 GMT) : On 12/12/2012 01:37 AM, intrigeri wrote: Looks like this should be added to the embedded code copies list, regardless of the minor diff: https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies This can also be in Gajim itself, and I'll do that for next release. Great! However, given this next release is highly unlikely to be in Wheezy, it looks like Wheezy will ship with a Gajim that *has* a python-gnupg embedded code copy -- and perhaps Squeeze has too? Regardless of the future (much welcome!) upstream fixes, information about the existing code duplication needs to be put on the dedicated list, so that the security team can react appropriately in case a security issue is discovered in the duplicated library. (Adding secure-testing-team into the loop, keeping the unblock bug in the Cc list too, as I doubt the package should be unblocked without having a clear view of what's happening with the embedded python-gnupg.) Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85lid38sf9@boum.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
On 12/12/2012 11:40, intrigeri wrote: Hi, Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 07:57:30 GMT) : On 12/12/2012 01:37 AM, intrigeri wrote: Looks like this should be added to the embedded code copies list, regardless of the minor diff: https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies This can also be in Gajim itself, and I'll do that for next release. Great! However, given this next release is highly unlikely to be in Wheezy, it looks like Wheezy will ship with a Gajim that *has* a python-gnupg embedded code copy -- and perhaps Squeeze has too? Regardless of the future (much welcome!) upstream fixes, information about the existing code duplication needs to be put on the dedicated list, so that the security team can react appropriately in case a security issue is discovered in the duplicated library. (Adding secure-testing-team into the loop, keeping the unblock bug in the Cc list too, as I doubt the package should be unblocked without having a clear view of what's happening with the embedded python-gnupg.) Ok then we wait for an answer from secure-testing-team? I don't think I need to do somthing, do I? note that the version of GnuPG in Gajim also handles some more errors like KEYEXPIRED and SIGEXPIRED. -- Yann -- 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/50c86f81.7050...@lagaule.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
Hi, Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 11:50:25 GMT) : Ok then we wait for an answer from secure-testing-team? I think so. I don't think I need to do somthing, do I? I think you don't, now that I added them to the loop myself. Which means we can now get back to why this update of an embedded library should be unblocked. Why is this update needed? Is the version embedded in testing / in unstable (based on) the same as the one packaged in python-gnupg? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- 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/85txrr2uyy@boum.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
On 12/12/2012 03:41 PM, intrigeri wrote:
Hi,
Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 11:50:25 GMT) :
Ok then we wait for an answer from secure-testing-team?
I think so.
I don't think I need to do somthing, do I?
I think you don't, now that I added them to the loop myself.
Which means we can now get back to why this update of an embedded
library should be unblocked. Why is this update needed? Is the version
embedded in testing / in unstable (based on) the same as the one
packaged in python-gnupg?
this version of Gajim doesn't only fix this embedded library
But the version embedded fixes some unhandeled errors, as I told you in
the previous mail. Full diff against python-gnupg-0.3.0 attached
--
Yann
--- /usr/share/pyshared/gnupg.py 2012-10-23 01:42:18.0 +0200
+++ gnupg.py 2012-12-02 19:43:09.0 +0100
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@
except NameError:
_py3k = True
-logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)
+logger = logging.getLogger('gajim.c.gnupg')
if not logger.handlers:
logger.addHandler(NullHandler())
@@ -435,6 +435,7 @@
self.gpg = gpg
self.type = None
self.fingerprint = None
+self.status = ''
def __nonzero__(self):
return self.fingerprint is not None
@@ -448,6 +449,8 @@
if key in (USERID_HINT, NEED_PASSPHRASE, BAD_PASSPHRASE,
GOOD_PASSPHRASE, BEGIN_SIGNING, CARDCTRL):
pass
+elif key in (KEYEXPIRED, SIGEXPIRED):
+self.status = 'key expired'
elif key == SIG_CREATED:
(self.type,
algo, hashalgo, cls,
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
Hi,
Yann Leboulanger wrote (14 Oct 2012 16:35:07 GMT) :
On 10/14/2012 06:18 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
FWIW, it _is_ packaged as python-gnupg.
right, but we have a small change in it for logging:
logger = logging.getLogger('gajim.c.gnupg')
Looks like this should be added to the embedded code copies list,
regardless of the minor diff:
https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
--
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/85sj7cayx0@boum.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 18:06:53 +0200, Yann Leboulanger wrote: On 10/12/2012 11:31 AM, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 16:12:55 +0200, Yann Leboulanger wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package gajim A new Gajim release fixes some bugs, and particulary the bug #682598 [0] More information can be found in the Mail I sent to debian-release mailing list: [1] debdif is available here: [2] [0]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682598 [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/09/msg00042.html [2]: http://lagaule.org/debian/gajim/gajim-0.15.1.debdiff unblock gajim/0.15.1-1 A few comments: - the source format change is not appropriate It's because it was in format 3.0 previously (Gajim 0.14.4), and for 0.15 I did something wrong that I wanted to repair. Moreover, I need to add a patch for your next point (change to _StreamCB) and it's nicer in format 3.0. If you really want, I can re-do the patch in old format. Yes please. - why does this drop the 0.15-1.1 changelog entry? hmm I didn't do this upload so it was not in my debian files. I've re-added it. Thanks. - what does the src/common/check_X509.py change do? string comparison and version comparison are kind of different things... Gajim 0.15 badly checks openssl version. see https://trac.gajim.org/ticket/7124 Well it's not fixed as far as I can tell, just differently wrong. Probably doesn't matter too much either way for the debian package, but still... - how is the change to _StreamCB supposed to work? there doesn't seem to be an 'obj' variable in that function It does not work. Oauth2 is not in 0.15 branch, so not usefull. But ok, I've added a patch to remove that. Thanks. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
I'll ask a debian developper to upload it as soon as you tell me it's ok (or you prefer it to be uploaded now? ) Hi, 0.15.1-2 is now in unstable, -- Yann -- 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/5090c839.1010...@leboulanger.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
On 10/12/2012 11:31 AM, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 16:12:55 +0200, Yann Leboulanger wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package gajim A new Gajim release fixes some bugs, and particulary the bug #682598 [0] More information can be found in the Mail I sent to debian-release mailing list: [1] debdif is available here: [2] [0]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682598 [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/09/msg00042.html [2]: http://lagaule.org/debian/gajim/gajim-0.15.1.debdiff unblock gajim/0.15.1-1 A few comments: - the source format change is not appropriate It's because it was in format 3.0 previously (Gajim 0.14.4), and for 0.15 I did something wrong that I wanted to repair. Moreover, I need to add a patch for your next point (change to _StreamCB) and it's nicer in format 3.0. If you really want, I can re-do the patch in old format. - why does this drop the 0.15-1.1 changelog entry? hmm I didn't do this upload so it was not in my debian files. I've re-added it. - what does the src/common/check_X509.py change do? string comparison and version comparison are kind of different things... Gajim 0.15 badly checks openssl version. see https://trac.gajim.org/ticket/7124 - how is the change to _StreamCB supposed to work? there doesn't seem to be an 'obj' variable in that function It does not work. Oauth2 is not in 0.15 branch, so not usefull. But ok, I've added a patch to remove that. - the src/common/gnupg.py changes are big and don't really look bugfix only. What's the potential for regression there? gnupg.py is an external library that is not yet packaged, it's why it is in Gajim sources (it's in Gajim repos too). I've take the new release from there. It's in Gajim trunk since May, 18, and don't cause any trouble. Of course I've read the changes, and I don't see anything that could cause a problem. Overall I think I'm ok with the farstream/farsight change but I'm not so sure about the rest. At least without some more explanations why they're necessary. Thanks for the comments, I hope I explained what you wanted to know, else don't hesitate to ask. I've re-build a new package available here: http://lagaule.org/debian/gajim/ I'll ask a debian developper to upload it as soon as you tell me it's ok (or you prefer it to be uploaded now? ) -- Yann -- 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/507ae31d.8040...@lagaule.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
* Yann Leboulanger aste...@lagaule.org, 2012-10-14, 18:06: - the src/common/gnupg.py changes are big and don't really look bugfix only. What's the potential for regression there? gnupg.py is an external library that is not yet packaged, FWIW, it _is_ packaged as python-gnupg. -- Jakub Wilk -- 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/20121014161802.ga3...@jwilk.net
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
On 10/14/2012 06:18 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Yann Leboulanger aste...@lagaule.org, 2012-10-14, 18:06:
- the src/common/gnupg.py changes are big and don't really look
bugfix only. What's the potential for regression there?
gnupg.py is an external library that is not yet packaged,
FWIW, it _is_ packaged as python-gnupg.
right, but we have a small change in it for logging:
logger = logging.getLogger('gajim.c.gnupg')
And I added an unhandled GPG message from it (full diff is here:
http://paste.gajim.org/view/66412c5c)
I'll open a bug there to add it and will remove it from Gajim sources
for next release.
--
Yann
--
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/507ae9bb.6050...@lagaule.org
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 16:12:55 +0200, Yann Leboulanger wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package gajim A new Gajim release fixes some bugs, and particulary the bug #682598 [0] More information can be found in the Mail I sent to debian-release mailing list: [1] debdif is available here: [2] [0]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682598 [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/09/msg00042.html [2]: http://lagaule.org/debian/gajim/gajim-0.15.1.debdiff unblock gajim/0.15.1-1 A few comments: - the source format change is not appropriate - why does this drop the 0.15-1.1 changelog entry? - what does the src/common/check_X509.py change do? string comparison and version comparison are kind of different things... - how is the change to _StreamCB supposed to work? there doesn't seem to be an 'obj' variable in that function - the src/common/gnupg.py changes are big and don't really look bugfix only. What's the potential for regression there? Overall I think I'm ok with the farstream/farsight change but I'm not so sure about the rest. At least without some more explanations why they're necessary. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#689147: unblock: gajim/0.15.1-1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package gajim A new Gajim release fixes some bugs, and particulary the bug #682598 [0] More information can be found in the Mail I sent to debian-release mailing list: [1] debdif is available here: [2] [0]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682598 [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/09/msg00042.html [2]: http://lagaule.org/debian/gajim/gajim-0.15.1.debdiff unblock gajim/0.15.1-1 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) -- 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/20120929141255.27798.31708.report...@asterix.lagaule.org
