Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package eglibc, whose changes were discussed on IRC
with adsb a while ago, and has now been uploaded. Debdiff attached,
but a quick step through the changelog:
[ Adam Con
"Adam D. Barratt" writes:
> Thanks for the review. Rob - please feel free to go ahead.
emacsen-common 2.0.5 has been uploaded to unstable. Please let me know
if you have any trouble.
Thanks
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C
Hi,
(Christian, I came across this while looking for RC bugs as part of my
T&S.)
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 07:40:04PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 16:34 +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> > Julien Cristau wrote (30 Sep 2012 13:10:55 GMT) :
> > > 3) upload to tpu a fix for whatever i
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:09:11 +
with message-id <1357769351.21796.3.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#697812: unblock: ruby-activerecord-3.2/3.2.6-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #697812,
regarding unblock: ruby-activerecord-3.2/3.2.6-4
to be marke
On 09.01.2013 22:29, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 01/01/13 13:26, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 23:28:13 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
>>> I've only tested this fairly trivially (totem still plays
>>> videos); I'll do some more testing before uploading if it becomes
>>> necessary, b
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:47:07 +
with message-id <1357768027.21796.2.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#697796: unblock: ruby-activesupport-2.3/2.3.14-5
has caused the Debian Bug report #697796,
regarding unblock: ruby-activesupport-2.3/2.3.14-5
to be m
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock packages ruby-activerecord-3.2 and ruby-actionpack-3.2.
The new versions uploaded do unstable fix CVE-2013-0155. Since the fix
is spread across those two packages, I think the
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + squeeze confirmed
Bug #697798 [release.debian.org] pu: package bind9/1:9.7.3.dfsg-1~squeeze9
Added tag(s) squeeze and confirmed.
--
697798: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=697798
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org wi
Control: tags -1 + squeeze confirmed
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 13:00 -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
> +bind9 (1:9.7.3.dfsg-1~squeeze9) squeeze-proposed-updates; urgency=low
> +
> + * Update db.root with new IP for D.root-servers.net. Closes: #697352
> +
> + -- LaMont Jones Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:07:02 -0
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 21:29:11 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> The broken situation is that at runtime, you have a "new" libglib2.0-0,
> an "old" libgstreamer0.10-0, and a "new" third-package.
>
That situation can be prevented by making sure every "new" third-package
has versioned depends on "ne
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:32:30 +
with message-id <1357767150.21796.0.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#697799: unblock: ruby-activesupport-3.2/3.2.6-5
has caused the Debian Bug report #697799,
regarding unblock: ruby-activesupport-3.2/3.2.6-5
to be mar
On 01/01/13 13:26, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 23:28:13 +, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> I've only tested this fairly trivially (totem still plays
>> videos); I'll do some more testing before uploading if it becomes
>> necessary, but it'd be better if a maintainer could do proper
> I'm not aware of any security issues in Ettercap and the release
> announcement of 0.7.5 doesn't mention them either.
> The 0.7.4 release mentions several buffer overflows, but this version
> is already in testing.
Well, that depends on *which* 0.7.4 you mean, NG-0.7.4 vs v0.7.4, but in
any cas
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package ruby-activesupport-3.2
This release includes a fix for CVE-2013-0156, fixing debian bug
#697790
The debdiff against the package in testing is attached
unblock ruby-
Thanks for putting audacious 3.2.4 into Wheezy :)
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 697798 pu: package bind9/1:9.7.3.dfsg-1~squeeze9
Bug #697798 [release.debian.org] pu: package bind9/1:9.7.3.dfsg-1~squeeze8
Changed Bug title to 'pu: package bind9/1:9.7.3.dfsg-1~squeeze9' from 'pu:
package bind9/1:9.7.3.dfsg-1~squeeze8'
Your message dated Wed, 9 Jan 2013 21:16:20 +0100
with message-id <20130109201619.gg5...@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#697688: unblock: proftpd-dfsg/1.3.4a-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #697688,
regarding unblock: proftpd-dfsg/1.3.4a-3
to be marked as done.
This means that you c
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
d.root-servers.net changed IP addresses 2013-01-03, the old IP will go
away in "about 6 months".
lamont
=
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 1
Your message dated Wed, 9 Jan 2013 20:58:42 +0100
with message-id <20130109195842.gf5...@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#697794: unblock: nusoap/0.7.3-5
has caused the Debian Bug report #697794,
regarding unblock: nusoap/0.7.3-5
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package ruby-activesupport-2.3
This version adds a fix for vulnerabilities in parameter parsing
[CVE-2013-0156] Closes: #697789]
the debdiff against the package in testing i
Your message dated Wed, 9 Jan 2013 20:54:06 +0100
with message-id <20130109195406.ge5...@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#697667: unblock: opendkim/2.6.8-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #697667,
regarding unblock: opendkim/2.6.8-4
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Your message dated Wed, 9 Jan 2013 20:51:56 +0100
with message-id <20130109195156.gd5...@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#693924: unblock: ltsp/5.4.2-5
has caused the Debian Bug report #693924,
regarding unblock: ltsp/5.4.2-5
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the prob
Hi Thomas
Ok, thanks. Where do I find the folsom packaging?
If -6 things are included in folsom I think it is better to upload a
special testing variant instead of -7 as the replace rules would be
too complicated otherwise.
// Ola
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 04:02:04PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock nusoap 0.7.3-5
It fixes CVE-2012-6071
Cheers,
Moritz
unblock nusoap/0.7.3-5
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500,
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 03:24:58PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:40:25PM +, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> > As I've stated previously, I don't believe that backporting fixes is
> > really feasible. There are too many, they are mixed with
> > non-security-related modi
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:59:04PM +0100, Emmanuel Kasper wrote:
> > Why does this change it to -mtune=generic instead of just nothing
> > at all?
> I asked Cesare Falco, the developper who did this commit, and his
> answer is
> " My idea was to make the build as optimized as possible
> withou
Your message dated Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:45:11 +
with message-id <20130109164511.gp6...@halon.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#692734: unblock: ettercap/0.7.5-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #692734,
regarding unblock: ettercap/0.7.5-4
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the p
Your message dated Wed, 09 Jan 2013 16:39:00 +
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#697782: unblock: swami/2.0.0+svn389-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #697782,
regarding unblock: swami/2.0.0+svn389-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please consider:
unblock swami/2.0.0+svn389-2
This is one of the two sourceful uploads for #694525.
diffstat for swami-2.0.0+svn389 swami-2.0.0+svn389
changelog |7 +++
control
> Do you have CVE numbers, BTS references or any further detail?
No, I don't believe any such processes were engaged. But examination of
the actual changes shows many potentially security-relevant deltas. The
tool is most commonly used in "friendly" networks to look for
vulnerabilities, so this
retitle 697764 unblock: glib2.0/2.33.12+really2.32.4-5
thanks
On 09.01.2013 14:51, Michael Biebl wrote:
> unblock glib2.0/2.33.12+really2.32.4-4
A stupid typo slipped into -4, so I had to do a brown paper bag release.
Full debdiff is attached.
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the instrument
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 697764 unblock: glib2.0/2.33.12+really2.32.4-5
Bug #697764 [release.debian.org] unblock: glib2.0/2.33.12+really2.32.4-4
Changed Bug title to 'unblock: glib2.0/2.33.12+really2.32.4-5' from 'unblock:
glib2.0/2.33.12+really2.32.4-4'
> thanks
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 02:40:25PM +, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> As I've stated previously, I don't believe that backporting fixes is
> really feasible. There are too many, they are mixed with
> non-security-related modifications, there would be enormous opportunity
> for error, and ongoing
As I've stated previously, I don't believe that backporting fixes is
really feasible. There are too many, they are mixed with
non-security-related modifications, there would be enormous opportunity
for error, and ongoing security maintenance would be quite difficult.
Some background: upstream deve
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package glib2.0
It fixes two RC bugs.
Related to #676485 is the pu request for gdm3/squeeze [1],[2].
glib2.0 (2.33.12+really2.32.4-4) unstable; urgency=low
* Take into ac
Sorry the memcache fix would trigger a lot of changes due to a new b-d and
problems with m-a linking. So please, just consider the locale change which
is safe.
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 01:00:25PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.d
Hi,
365 files changed, 23718 insertions(+), 14033 deletions(-)
This isn't something that can be reviewed, especially with the large
number of unrelated changes to (for example build system switch!) the
package.
The options remaining are:
* Backport specific fixes for the version in testing
* Re
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package proftpd-dfsg to fix a locale problem and render the
provided mod_tls_memcache module truly working when used. These chages
are not relevant for security as for -3 pre
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Hi,
as already discussed, I’d like to propose a stable upload for gdm3 in
order to avoid a security risk when doing upgrades.
Theoretically, with the greeter session of gdm 2.30 and the glib v
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package gtk+3.0. Version 3.4.2-5 fixes important bug #692235.
The debdiff is attached.
unblock gtk+3.0/3.4.2-5
Cheers,
--
.''`.Sébastien Villemot
: :' :Debian Dev
Hi Ola,
Thanks for taking care of this! :)
On 01/09/2013 03:51 AM, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Happy new year Thomas!
>
> Skipping release team for this mail as I want to check one thing with you.
> You write that we will not maintain the -6 version in sid. Do that mean
> that all the work I did for
41 matches
Mail list logo
