On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 14:45:36 +0200, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> On 30 April 2014 01:36, Guillem Jover wrote:
> [...]
> > Attached a non-tested quick patch implementing this. I'll start
> > testing it and preparing packages for all suites.
>
> In case you were waiting for an ACK, please go ahead.
Hi Guillem,
On 30 April 2014 01:36, Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]
> Attached a non-tested quick patch implementing this. I'll start
> testing it and preparing packages for all suites.
In case you were waiting for an ACK, please go ahead. I'll handle the
update soon after they've hit the sec archive
Hi!
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 00:12:56 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Guillem Jover , 2014-04-29, 23:40:
> >>>1. Simply revert the patch, and ignore issues w/ partial upgrades (at
> >>>least for now?).
> >>>2. Revert the patch and add versioned depdendencies against the
> >>>working patch package. This
* Guillem Jover , 2014-04-29, 23:40:
1. Simply revert the patch, and ignore issues w/ partial upgrades (at
least for now?).
2. Revert the patch and add versioned depdendencies against the
working patch package. This might require some dist-upgrade tests,
though.
3. Fix the patch to take into ac
On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 18:55:35 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Guillem Jover , 2014-04-29, 08:11:
> >1. Simply revert the patch, and ignore issues w/ partial upgrades (at
> >least for now?).
> >2. Revert the patch and add versioned depdendencies against the working
> >patch package. This might require
* Guillem Jover , 2014-04-29, 08:11:
1. Simply revert the patch, and ignore issues w/ partial upgrades (at
least for now?).
2. Revert the patch and add versioned depdendencies against the working
patch package. This might require some dist-upgrade tests, though.
3. Fix the patch to take into acc
On 2014-04-29 12:27 +0200, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> On 29 April 2014 08:11, Guillem Jover wrote:
> [...]
>> 2. Revert the patch and add versioned depdendencies against the working
>> patch package. This might require some dist-upgrade tests, though.
>> 3. Fix the patch to take into acco
Hi,
On 29 April 2014 08:11, Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]
> 2. Revert the patch and add versioned depdendencies against the working
> patch package. This might require some dist-upgrade tests, though.
> 3. Fix the patch to take into account the old behaviour, by checking
> if either of
Hi,
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 22:35:57 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.15.9
> Tags: security squeeze
> As far as I see, escaping file names was added to diffutils in 2012. The
> feature is not present in a squeeze environment. CVE-2014-0471 does not
> apply.
>
> Direct
9 matches
Mail list logo
