On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 05:06:50PM -0700, LaMont Jones wrote:
> I just uploaded 'bind8' and friends (sitting in NEW last I saw), with a
> README that deprecates it. I'd be happy to upload a new 'bind' to TPU
> with the deprecation in it as well, or we could consider pulling BIND8
> into testing.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 10:12:44PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Moritz Muehlenhoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070111 19:31]:
> About bind 8, I'm not so sure. Do the maintainers have any opinion about
> bind 8?
I just uploaded 'bind8' and friends (sitting in NEW last I saw), with a
README that depreca
* Moritz Muehlenhoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070111 19:31]:
> I've asked for reasons to still ship Apache 1.3 a few months ago and
> only received a vague "it still has it's use". I'm still curious why
> it's needed. The same goes for bind8, only that I didn't receive a
> sustantial reply at all...
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/11/07 13:24, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 07:30:39PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Sure, but python2.5 is not really usable: almost all the python modules a=
>>> re
compiled only for
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 07:30:39PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >> Sure, but python2.5 is not really usable: almost all the python modules a=
> > re
> >> compiled only for python2.4. For postgresql you are right and I'm wrong,
> >> but I suppose that there are othe
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> Sure, but python2.5 is not really usable: almost all the python modules a=
> re
>> compiled only for python2.4. For postgresql you are right and I'm wrong,
>> but I suppose that there are other examples in the archive where the only=
> a
>> major release is released.
>
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> That got me wondering and it appears that Etch will ship with Apache
> 1.3.34? Why? It is considered a legacy release by ASF? Is the Debian
> security team really willing to support it for another 2-3 years?
> I'm sure that there are other examples.
(Funnily enough,
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 10:02:05PM +0100, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
>
> Sure, but python2.5 is not really usable: almost all the python modules are
> compiled only for python2.4. For postgresql you are right and I'm wrong,
> but I suppose that there are other examples in the archive where the only
Hi Steinar,
* 2007-01-10 20:45, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> We have both python2.4 and python2.5 in testing. Also, we have
> postgresql-7.4 and postgresql-8.1. I'm not sure if your examples are ideal
> :-)
Sure, but python2.5 is not really usable: almost all the python modules are
compiled only
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 08:33:23PM +0100, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Why do we ship both bind 8 and bind 9 in etch? Sorry if the question is
> stupid, but considering that we ship only one version of python, one
> version of PostgreSQL, one version of Zope I do not see any obvious reason
> to ship
* 2007-01-10 20:28, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I recommend to add a note urging people to switch to BIND 9 (possibly
> mentioning "check-names ignore", which is one of the larger hurdles
> IIRC).
Why do we ship both bind 8 and bind 9 in etch? Sorry if the question is
stupid, but considering that we s
I recommend to add a note urging people to switch to BIND 9 (possibly
mentioning "check-names ignore", which is one of the larger hurdles
IIRC).
The main reason is this bug:
CVE-2006-0527 (BIND 4 (BIND4) and BIND 8 (BIND8), if used as a target
forwarder, ...)
- bind 1:8.4.7-1 (low)
12 matches
Mail list logo
