On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 03:07:28AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
[...]
Package Name Bug # Bug Description [days old] (maintainer)
~ ~
boot-floppies 33276 FW: Boot disks 2.1.7 has quot;brokenquot;
dpkg_slinkcd ;(
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 02:20:00PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
Previously Brian White wrote:
apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files
[0] (Johnie Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED])
We should just force SymLinksIfOwnerMatch for /home to solve this.
You know, I
You know, I don't see this as grave. It means that a user can
effectively export to the world any file readable by www-data. In
general, this means only things that can be read by public. So,
the user can't intentionally export anything that he/she couldn't already
do by other means.
Previously Brian White wrote:
apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files
[0] (Johnie Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED])
We should just force SymLinksIfOwnerMatch for /home to solve this.
You know, I don't see this as grave. It means that a user can
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 10:10:25PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
I understand. My point, however, was that anyone who exports those things
on purpose could just as easily copy the file, ftp it, email it, or
whatever. Plugging a whole in the side of a boat doesn't help when the
boat has no
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 02:01:00PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
jdk1.132548 Java doesn't work at all for me on slink [0]
(Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED])
This bug should probably be downgraded. Java works fine without the
named script. I looked into performing an NMU to
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 10:11:54PM -0600, Jonel Rienton wrote:
Slink's latest lprng is broken, it's give me a problem about permission or
something'.
Best to submit a bug. Make sure to make it important.
Slink's latest lprng is broken, it's give me a problem about permission or
something'.
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
general 28850 gettext: security problem when used in setuid
programs [0] (debian-devel@lists.debian.org)
Everyone who has a package with a setuid program or something that runs
as root should check if it uses gettext, and if so recompile it with
the
Joey Hess wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
general 28850 gettext: security problem when used in setuid
programs [0] (debian-devel@lists.debian.org)
Everyone who has a package with a setuid program or something that runs
as root should check if it uses gettext, and if so
Quoting Oscar Levi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 10:11:54PM -0600, Jonel Rienton wrote:
Slink's latest lprng is broken, it's give me a problem about permission or
something'.
Best to submit a bug. Make sure to make it important.
32628 was submitted 30 Jan. It could be
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 12:05:27PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
general 28850 gettext: security problem when used in setuid
programs [0] (debian-devel@lists.debian.org)
Everyone who has a package with a setuid program or
Previously Jonel Rienton wrote:
Slink's latest lprng is broken, it's give me a problem about permission or
something'.
Vincent already uploaded a fix for that.
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms a
Previously Brian White wrote:
Hmmm... If things were installed by hand (dpkg --install dpkglib...)
or if install were to fail between the two packages, then you could have
a problem where the install tool doesn't function, right?
Right. But since libdpkg is still a part of the dpkg package we
On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 10:54:20AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
xbase 30852 X packages do not upgrade automatically due to name change.
[41] (Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED])
[...]
There's supposed to be a new version of the X
On Sunday 31 January 1999, at 0 h 48, the keyboard of Michael Stone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
boot-floppies 32269 partion harddisk fails if WIN95_EXTENDED present
[0] (Enrique Zanardi debian-boot@lists.debian.org)
The report log is a little unclear. It looks like there is a version
Oscar Levi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion, this problem is not sufficient to warrant an upload at
this time since, contrary to the bug reporters claim, it does not
prevent the packing from functioning. It is annoying, yes.
Interesting that it works for you. It really doesn't for
Hmmm... If things were installed by hand (dpkg --install dpkglib...)
or if install were to fail between the two packages, then you could have
a problem where the install tool doesn't function, right?
Right. But since libdpkg is still a part of the dpkg package we
shouldn't need to worry
On Monday 1 February 1999, at 10 h 54, the keyboard of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale E. Martin) wrote:
java was not found in /usr/lib/jdk1.1/bin/../bin/i686/green_threads/java
...
The binary is somehow actually missing, and I've not done anything weird as
far as I know. The other folks who are
On 1999/02/01, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Monday 1 February 1999, at 10 h 54, the keyboard of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale E. Martin) wrote:
java was not found in /usr/lib/jdk1.1/bin/../bin/i686/green_threads/java
...
The binary is somehow actually missing, and I've not done anything weird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale E. Martin) writes:
Oscar Levi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion, this problem is not sufficient to warrant an upload at
this time since, contrary to the bug reporters claim, it does not
prevent the packing from functioning. It is annoying, yes.
Interesting
Stephane == Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stephane Sam's message indicates that the i686 directory is
Stephane used. Since the name includes a .. could it be a symbolic
Stephane link problem? Sam, any symlink in /usr/lib/jdk1.1/bin? Any
Stephane chance when deinstalling jdk and
On 1/02, Steve Dunham wrote:
|
| I have the same problem. The file does show up in dpkg -L:
|
|/usr/lib/jdk1.1/bin/i686/green_threads/java
|
| But on the filesystem, the i686 directory is a symlink to the i586
| directory, and i586/green_threads is empty. Perhaps this is a bug in
| dpkg?
jdk1.1 works for me on a slink machine. It is true that Java on Debian seems
poorly supported and the maintainers overloaded.
I'll do an NMU to avoid the warning...but only if we (read as Brian)
deem it necessary for release.
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
Joey Hess wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
general 28850 gettext: security problem when used in setuid
programs [0] (debian-devel@lists.debian.org)
Everyone who has a package with a setuid program or something that runs
nonus.debian.org 23780 nonus.debian.org: libssl-dev is obsolete [220]
(Heiko Schlittermann [EMAIL PROTECTED])
...
Will non-us ever be fixed?
It is but I'm afraid the bugs have not been closed. Heiko seems really
overloaded (and does not reply a lot even on other subjects) so an
Steve == Steve Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve But on the filesystem, the i686 directory is a symlink to
Steve the i586 directory, and i586/green_threads is empty.
Steve Perhaps this is a bug in dpkg? (I suspect that if you
Steve remove the jdk1.1 package and reinstall it,
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 06:46:49PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
nonus.debian.org 23780 nonus.debian.org: libssl-dev is obsolete [220]
(Heiko Schlittermann [EMAIL PROTECTED])
...
Will non-us ever be fixed?
It is but I'm afraid the bugs have not been closed. Heiko seems really
Samuel Tardieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Will users upgrading from Hamm to Slink suffer from the same problems? If so,
this may be a nightmare for them!
FWIW, I've been running slink for months (and months!) and upgrading solely
with apt, and this just bit me recently. So, it _could_ effect
severity 30852 normal
thanks
Oh, *this* one. Silly me.
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 02:44:07PM +0100, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
Branden, this fixes a different bug, but it does not fix bug #30852 yet.
Bug #30852 does not have anything to do with the xbase package split
(which is in in fact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale E. Martin) writes:
Oscar Levi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my opinion, this problem is not sufficient to warrant an upload at
this time since, contrary to the bug reporters claim, it does not
prevent the packing from functioning. It is annoying, yes.
Well, let's see what's holding up slink. :)
apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
(Johnie Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED])
There's a suggested fix in the bug report. Is it problematic?
autoconf 32391 Autoconf patches for slink [0] (Ben Pfaff [EMAIL
Michael Stone wrote:
chameleon 32522 chameleon in slink depends on too-new libs [0]
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean E. Perry))
Looks like it just needs a recompile against the right libs; or does it not
work against the older glib?
The (former) maintainer just did a new upload that
MS == Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
dpkg-dev 31508 parsechangelog broken? [22] (Ian Jackson and
others [EMAIL PROTECTED])
MS No one ever wants to touch dpkg...
There is a patch provided with this bug report.
xxgdb 32206 xxgdb: Can't rebuild xxgdb from
Here we go again :)
Previously Brian White wrote:
apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
(Johnie Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED])
We should just force SymLinksIfOwnerMatch for /home to solve this.
autoconf 32391 Autoconf patches for slink [0] (Ben
Previously Michael Stone wrote:
perl-suid 31904 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Secuity hole with perl
(suidperl) and nosuid mounts on Linux] [13] (Darren Stalder [EMAIL
PROTECTED])
I'm not sure there's much we can do about this one--it's a library (kernel?)
problem. Perhaps a note in the
On Sun, 31 Jan, 1999, Michael Stone wrote:
transfig 32520 transfig: puts files in /usr/lib/X11, should use
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11 instead [0] (Edward Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED])
This seems fairly simple, right?
Sitting in incoming
--
GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems,
Quoting Wichert Akkerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Previously Michael Stone wrote:
perl-suid 31904 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Secuity hole with perl
(suidperl) and nosuid mounts on Linux] [13] (Darren Stalder [EMAIL
PROTECTED])
I'm not sure there's much we can do about this one--it's
Quoting David Starner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
No. The maintainer needs to get the new license (or clarification of the
old, depending on how you split your hairs) from the LyX website and
change the copyright file. Being more or less error-proof, it seems to
call for a simple NMU.
I thought I
All right, here's the revised list (removing anything that someone confirmed
as almost done.)
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
(Johnie Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED])
There's a suggested fix in the bug
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 10:54:20AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
xbase 30852 X packages do not upgrade automatically due to
name change. [41] (Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED])
xdm 29360 xdm: Stopped X without warning/asking [77]
(Branden Robinson [EMAIL
Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sysutils 29392 oldversion procinfo in sysutils is broken [76]
(Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Is there a reason not to put the new version in?
I need someone to confirm for me that the new sysutils that I put in
potato will work
MD == Michael Alan Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MD I need someone to confirm for me that the new sysutils that I put
MD in potato will work with 2.0.X kernels. I don't have one to test
MD with---my only non-production system can't do 2.0.X because of
MD driver issues.
It does for me. No
Previously Brian White wrote:
apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
(Johnie Ingram [EMAIL PROTECTED])
We should just force SymLinksIfOwnerMatch for /home to solve this.
You know, I don't see this as grave. It means that a user can
effectively
Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, let's see what's holding up slink. :)
automake 32390 Automake patches for proper Alpha detection [0]
(Kevin Dalley [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Maintainer says upload is coming.
The fix has been uploaded and is waiting for installation.
Previously Brian White wrote:
You know, I don't see this as grave. It means that a user can
effectively export to the world any file readable by www-data. In
general, this means only things that can be read by public. So,
the user can't intentionally export anything that he/she couldn't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wichert Akkerman) wrote on 31.01.99 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Previously Michael Stone wrote:
perl-suid 31904 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Secuity hole with pe=
rl (suidperl) and nosuid mounts on Linux] [13] (Darren Stalder [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
.com )
=20
I'm not sure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote on 31.01.99 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
29360: point 1) is an issue for the release notes; I can't retroactively
patch an old prerm;
You could, but it would be fairly ugly, and I'm not sure it's worth it.
Startegy: pre-depend on a package that does the
48 matches
Mail list logo
