On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:52 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:41:54PM +, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > Stretch and sid are quoting version 2.6.1 and I can't see where they got
> > that from, as upstream (sourceforge) latest version seems to be 2.6.0.
> And
> > 2.6.1 claims to b
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:41:54PM +, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> Stretch and sid are quoting version 2.6.1 and I can't see where they got
> that from, as upstream (sourceforge) latest version seems to be 2.6.0. And
> 2.6.1 claims to be the version with the fix.
*sigh* ... it just figures, as soon
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:19 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:11:30AM +, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > However I also have Linux machines that don't use a package management
> > system, and there I also have a version of flex with the vulnerability,
> so
> > I wanted to get the
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:11:30AM +, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> However I also have Linux machines that don't use a package management
> system, and there I also have a version of flex with the vulnerability, so
> I wanted to get the source tarball of the fixed version (v2.6.1) so I could
> build
I have a feeling I'm about to embarrass myself by displaying either
ignorance or a failure to spot the obvious, but here goes...
The other day there was a Debian security advisory about the flex package.
In my Debian machines, the fix can be installed by the usual apt commands.
However I also hav
5 matches
Mail list logo
