I don't know, but I would agree that the risk is small enough to drop
the matter and close the case.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Michael S.
Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:44:44 +0200 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> > version 1:1.5.2-5 that I released to unstable is suitable for stable
>> > a
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:44:44 +0200 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > version 1:1.5.2-5 that I released to unstable is suitable for stable
> > aswell. Prior to this bugfix unstable and stable both contained
> > version 1:1.5.2-4. Attached is a patch with the fix. Do you want me to
> > build it for stable as
Hi Håkan,
> version 1:1.5.2-5 that I released to unstable is suitable for stable
> aswell. Prior to this bugfix unstable and stable both contained
> version 1:1.5.2-4. Attached is a patch with the fix. Do you want me to
> build it for stable aswell?
Thank you for getting in touch with us. Judging
Hi,
version 1:1.5.2-5 that I released to unstable is suitable for stable
aswell. Prior to this bugfix unstable and stable both contained
version 1:1.5.2-4. Attached is a patch with the fix. Do you want me to
build it for stable aswell?
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Michael S.
Gilbert wrote:
> r
reopen 534973
fixed 534973 1:1.5.2-5
thanks
hello,
please assist the security team to prepare updates for this issue in
the stable releases. thank you.
mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lis
5 matches
Mail list logo
