Hi,
On 06/08/2012 04:28 PM, Dennis Schridde wrote:
Am Freitag, 8. Juni 2012, 12:58:53 schrieben Sie:
On 06/08/2012 11:27 AM, Dennis Schridde wrote:
Hi!
The version of the package currently available in SL6 is
vsftpd-2.2.2-6.el6_0.1.x86_64,
Are you sure about this? in fastbugs I see vsftpd-2.2.2-6.el6_2.1
while RHEL6 apparently ships
vsftpd-2.2.2-11.el6 [1].
I think that is a mis-understanding.
Can you please update it, as it contains a bugfix
that is important for our systems.
Kind regards,
Dennis Schridde
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708657 ("Fixed In
Version")
Please cite properly: "should be fixed in"... and the comment was made
this night at 03:21:47 EDT.
What makes you believe that RH has released the fix already? What makes
you think it has already passed QA?
Matthias
Sorry for my comment, I fear it was more rude that it was intended to
be. And I admit I had not read the bugzilla entry properly...
Bug #708657 comment #47 [1] mentions bug #767108 [2] which was closed in
January. So it appeared to me as if SL was missing a fix from RHEL for 5
months. I am sorry if I misunderstood the meaning of the bugreports.
They can be tricky at times, and I also got confused by the versions
mentioned.
In detail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708657 was reported against
RHEL6.1 in May 2011, and the affected cvftpd version appears to have
been 2.2.2-6.el6_0.1. A solution was proposed on 2011-08-31 07:29:24
EDT. According to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767108 a
patched rpm for 6.2 was provided by RH on 2012-01-03, the patched
version was 2.2.2-6.el6_2.1.
Regarding QA: Bug #708657 changed from ON_QA to VERIFIED in April. I assume
that means it passed QA? Again I am sorry if I misunderstood the meaning of
that.
708657 is confusing, but 767108 mentions the patched version that was
released, and it is 2.2.2-6.el6_2.1, which you also find in SL fastbugs.
Hope this helps,
Matthias
Kind regards,
Dennis Schridde
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708657#c47
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767108
