Bug#697957: unblock: connman/1.0-1.1

2013-01-21 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On 21.01.2013 00:42, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 01/20/2013 11:06 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: That would work, yeah; it's not the cleanest solution ever, but the tpu appears to have built on the majority of architectures already. The alternative is we drop the earlier tpu packages

Bug#697957: unblock: connman/1.0-1.1

2013-01-21 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 01/21/2013 10:23 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: I've been pondering this and arguing with myself a little. There is the potential for confusion if the version in t-p-u goes backwards, so let's go with the unstable route; thanks. Just uploaded 1.0-1.2 into unstable. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul

Bug#697957: unblock: connman/1.0-1.1

2013-01-20 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sun, 2013-01-20 at 02:59 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Rebuilt for testing now and uploaded into t-p-u. Thanks. It looks like that was as 1.0-1.1+wheezy1 however, which means its version is higher than unstable. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Bug#697957: unblock: connman/1.0-1.1

2013-01-20 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 01/20/2013 12:40 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2013-01-20 at 02:59 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Rebuilt for testing now and uploaded into t-p-u. Thanks. It looks like that was as 1.0-1.1+wheezy1 however, which means its version is higher than unstable. Well, damn, I was

Bug#697957: unblock: connman/1.0-1.1

2013-01-20 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sun, 2013-01-20 at 15:15 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 01/20/2013 12:40 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Thanks. It looks like that was as 1.0-1.1+wheezy1 however, which means its version is higher than unstable. Well, damn, I was too quick, should have used a ~ instead of a +

Bug#697957: unblock: connman/1.0-1.1

2013-01-20 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 01/20/2013 11:06 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: That would work, yeah; it's not the cleanest solution ever, but the tpu appears to have built on the majority of architectures already. The alternative is we drop the earlier tpu packages followed by a re-versioned upload. Sure, if you can simply

Bug#697957: unblock: connman/1.0-1.1

2013-01-19 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: reopen -1 On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 23:59 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Please unblock package connman connman/1.0-1.1 contains just one patch from upstream which fixes the vulnerability CVE-2012-6459 [1]. I am attaching the debdiff. Unfortunately it's also picked up a

Bug#697957: unblock: connman/1.0-1.1

2013-01-19 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 01/19/2013 01:06 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Control: reopen -1 On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 23:59 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Please unblock package connman connman/1.0-1.1 contains just one patch from upstream which fixes the vulnerability CVE-2012-6459 [1]. I am attaching the

Bug#697957: unblock: connman/1.0-1.1

2013-01-19 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Rebuilt for testing now and uploaded into t-p-u. Cheers, Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To

Bug#697957: unblock: connman/1.0-1.1

2013-01-11 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package connman connman/1.0-1.1 contains just one patch from upstream which fixes the vulnerability CVE-2012-6459 [1]. I am attaching the debdiff. Cheers, Adrian unblock