Backports of testssl.sh
Hi Unit 193, Hello Team, as per the PTS [1] testssl.sh versions 3.0+dfsg1-1~bpo10+1 3.0.1+dfsg1-1~bpo10+1 3.0.2+dfsg1-1~bpo10+1 3.0.2+dfsg1-2~bpo10+1 had been accepted into buster-backports, while in the repository on Salsa there is no branch debian/buster-backports [2] and there are no tags [3] for those versions. I believe this should be fixed. @Unit 193, I am afraid this can only be fixed by you, as you uploaded the versions concerned aircrack-ng [4] or tomb [5] are good examples to see how it should look like. Regards, Sven [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/testssl.sh [2] https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/testssl.sh/-/branches [3] https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/testssl.sh/-/tags [4] https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/aircrack-ng/-/tags [5] https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/tomb/-/tags signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#964399: Should ganglia be removed?
Hi Marcos, I overlooked this in my inbox.. On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 11:15:58PM +0200, Marcos Fouces wrote: > Hello Moritz > > I did some work time ago on ganglia [1] but i never get this work > published due to unactive/unresponsive uploaders. > > I also done some work on ganglia-web and ganglia-linux-modules packages > (also unpublished). > > I believe that it is still a good piece of software that deserve its > place on Debian so i would like to step up as uploader (co-uploaders > welcome!) if needed. > > I also would like to maintain it under pkg-security team umbrella. > > Please, let me know your thoughs. Do you have a plan how to deal with the plugins in Python 2? Will you port them yourself or rather drop them? Packaging it under the pkg-security umbrella feels a little off/odd, but if you think Ganglia is still useful in 2020 and want to adopt it and fix the bugs, sure please go ahead :-) Cheers, Moritz
