Leo Famulari writes:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:13:25AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:49:29PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote:
>> > Leo Famulari writes:
>> > > +diff --git a/debian/patches/series b/debian/patches/series
>> > > +new file mode 100644
>> > > +index 000..7
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:27:57AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> Of course, the patch I sent on January 1 was completely broken.
>
> The patch it included from Debian was meant to be applied to the Debian
> package tree, not the UnRTF source code.
I found another instance of this in mcrypt, which
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 02:13:25AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:49:29PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote:
> > Leo Famulari writes:
> > > +diff --git a/debian/patches/series b/debian/patches/series
> > > +new file mode 100644
> > > +index 000..7868249
> > > +--- /dev/null
>
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:49:29PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote:
> Leo Famulari writes:
> > +Patch copied from Debian:
> > +
> > +https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/unrtf.git/commit/?h=jessie&id=7500a48fb0fbad3ab963fb17560b2f90a8a485c8
> > +
> > +The Debian patch adapts this upstream commit
Leo Famulari writes:
> * gnu/packages/patches/unrtf-CVE-2016-10091.patch: New file.
> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it.
> * gnu/packages/unrtf.scm (unrtf)[source]: Use it.
[...]
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/unrtf-CVE-2016-10091.patch
> b/gnu/packages/patches/unrtf-CVE-2016-10091
* gnu/packages/patches/unrtf-CVE-2016-10091.patch: New file.
* gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it.
* gnu/packages/unrtf.scm (unrtf)[source]: Use it.
---
gnu/local.mk| 1 +
gnu/packages/patches/unrtf-CVE-2016-10091.patch | 224
gnu/
