Hi Robert-- thanks for the followup!
On Wed 2020-10-28 02:56:55 -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote: > I've never been able to reproduce this bug, but your branch looks good > to me as far as backporting this commit to 1.9.0. It's commit > 225534e5ab22d16ab32fa1011733f3c69c7b28ba in the upstream repo which was > released in 1.9.1. I don't have any objection if you want to propose a > stable update for unbound with just this fix. Personally I've been > keeping unbound in buster-backports up to date with testing lately and I > don't have any buster machines running the version of unbound in buster > :-) Over on https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/bugs-script/show_bug.cgi?id=4227 upstream suggested two different things: - upgrade to 1.9.2, (which incorporates this and several other bugfixes), or - cherry-pick a list of other commits which they think are also relevant to this specific fix: 348cbab016f824a336b65d0091310fe5cd58e762 2b47ca080eb91e209fb86cd1dc90a6aff32e2a1f and four more, related to spoolbuf: 0b77c9d6763686264d44dfd926c8cb4f2f03a43a 6067ce6d2b82ce2e80055e578fdfd7ba3e67c523 af6c5dea43fc63452d49b2339e607365b6652987 a08fe8ca609b651c8d8c8379780aad508d492421 I'm assuming that the release team would prefer that we go the latter route (cherry-picked patches), but i haven't tried to get a direct verdict from them on that. I confess i don't really understand the way that unbound's buster packaging is working -- i think it's neither git-dpm nor gbp -- so i don't exactly know how i'd assemble an update for the next buster point release without overhauling it. (i'd be fine with overhauling it to use gbp (as i think the unstable version of the packaging is) as long as you're ok with that, but i also don't know whether that would make the changes more unpleasant for the release team. Any suggestions? --dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
