Hi Mike,
> I find that the below package / CVE states make front-desk life easy and
> clear:
>
> - package has been claimed
> - a CVE is tagged with
> - a CVE is tagged with
> - a CVE is vulnerable
> - a CVE is fixed
Should we completely stop using then?
This makes sense for the
Hi Hugo, hi all,
On So 01 Sep 2019 00:26:24 CEST, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote:
Hi Mike,
> I have recently worked on these issues (in the last two weeks, in
fact). :-)
>
> Most of these issues are no-dsa, either very minor from a
security point of
> view or the patches are too unclear/unstable
Hi Mike,
> > I have recently worked on these issues (in the last two weeks, in fact). :-)
> >
> > Most of these issues are no-dsa, either very minor from a security point of
> > view or the patches are too unclear/unstable to be applied currently.
> >
> > The only recently postponed issue is
Hi Hugo,
(taking out pkg maintainers out of the loop as this is an LTS workflow issue)
On Fr 30 Aug 2019 15:03:03 CEST, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote:
Hi Mike,
The Debian LTS team recently reviewed the security issue(s) affecting your
package in Jessie:
Hi Mike,
> The Debian LTS team recently reviewed the security issue(s) affecting your
> package in Jessie:
> https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/imagemagick
>
> We decided that a member of the LTS team should take a look at this
> package, although the security impact of
Dear maintainer(s),
The Debian LTS team recently reviewed the security issue(s) affecting your
package in Jessie:
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/imagemagick
We decided that a member of the LTS team should take a look at this
package, although the security impact of
