Re: please ignore pocl autopkgtest failure on ppc64el
Hi Andreas, On 15-01-2022 03:27, Andreas Beckmann wrote: please temporarily ignore the autopkgtest failure of pocl on ppc64el. pocl just gained a first superficial autopkgtest, but it is not built on ppc64el and therefore not installable ... causing a "regression" Ack, I will. I'll add the skip-not-installable restriction in the next upload. Please don't. I regret I implemented this restriction as it easily hides issues that we don't want hidden. *If* you want to make it clear that ppc64el should be ignored, use the (relatively new) Architecture field, but after I add the hint it won't be needed anymore. We should fix this issue in britney, as it shouldn't run tests where the test Depends aren't installable (as can be easily deducted in this case as you didn't use "@" in the test dependency list). Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
please ignore pocl autopkgtest failure on ppc64el
Hi, please temporarily ignore the autopkgtest failure of pocl on ppc64el. pocl just gained a first superficial autopkgtest, but it is not built on ppc64el and therefore not installable ... causing a "regression" I'll add the skip-not-installable restriction in the next upload. Thanks Andreas
Processed: php-horde-ldap: (autopkgtest) needs update for php8.1: internal LDAP link is invalid
Processing control commands: > affects -1 src:php-defaults Bug #1003747 [src:php-horde-ldap] php-horde-ldap: (autopkgtest) needs update for php8.1: internal LDAP link is invalid Added indication that 1003747 affects src:php-defaults > block 976811 by -1 Bug #976811 [release.debian.org] transition: php8.1 976811 was blocked by: 1000619 1002504 1002242 977385 1003746 980567 977401 1000593 1000571 1002215 977186 977389 977403 1002020 1000574 1000647 1000653 1000263 977378 1002218 977337 1000654 1003472 1003744 977377 977658 990322 1002232 1000655 1000596 1003479 977404 1003432 977384 977379 1003473 1000650 978457 977396 1003007 1000642 977687 978151 977400 977376 977388 1000474 977340 1000568 1000637 976811 was blocking: 1000585 1002681 977373 Added blocking bug(s) of 976811: 1003747 -- 1003747: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003747 976811: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976811 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: php-horde-imp: (autopkgtest) needs update for php8.1: Failed asserting that 'This action is not supported. horde.warning' contains "Reply Sent."
Processing control commands: > affects -1 src:php-defaults Bug #1003746 [src:php-horde-imp] php-horde-imp: (autopkgtest) needs update for php8.1: Failed asserting that 'This action is not supported. horde.warning' contains "Reply Sent." Added indication that 1003746 affects src:php-defaults > block 976811 by -1 Bug #976811 [release.debian.org] transition: php8.1 976811 was blocked by: 980567 977340 1003472 1000655 990322 1002504 977186 1000568 977379 1003479 1002218 1000653 1000647 1003744 977384 977404 977389 977376 1000642 978151 978457 1000637 977658 977337 977403 977396 977378 1002242 1002215 1002020 1000593 977687 1000596 1000650 977385 977400 1002232 1003007 977401 1003473 1003432 1000619 977377 1000263 977388 1000574 1000474 1000571 1000654 976811 was blocking: 1000585 1002681 977373 Added blocking bug(s) of 976811: 1003746 -- 1003746: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003746 976811: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976811 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: php-horde-crypt: (autopkgtest) needs update for php8.1: errorHandler(), 4 passed and exactly 5 expected
Processing control commands: > affects -1 src:php-defaults Bug #1003744 [src:php-horde-crypt] php-horde-crypt: (autopkgtest) needs update for php8.1: errorHandler(), 4 passed and exactly 5 expected Added indication that 1003744 affects src:php-defaults > block 976811 by -1 Bug #976811 [release.debian.org] transition: php8.1 976811 was blocked by: 977340 1000619 1003479 977400 977401 1000655 977403 1000263 977337 977389 1002242 1000650 1000571 1000568 977186 978151 1000474 1002020 1003007 1002232 977687 977396 1003432 977404 977378 1000596 1000642 1000574 1002504 980567 990322 1003473 978457 1000647 977376 1000593 977377 977379 1002218 1000654 977384 1002215 1000637 977385 977388 1000653 1003472 977658 976811 was blocking: 1000585 1002681 977373 Added blocking bug(s) of 976811: 1003744 -- 1003744: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003744 976811: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=976811 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1002298: bullseye-pu: package clamav/0.103.4+dfsg-0+deb11u1
On 2022-01-12 20:44:46 [+0100], To Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > I wasn't really sure which of the changes made sense to mention, but
> > had a go at an initial draft for an announcement. Tweaks, updates or
> > complete rewrites welcome:
> >
> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > ClamAV is an AntiVirus toolkit for Unix.
> >
> > Upstream published version 0.103.4.
> >
> > This is a bug-fix release and an upstream LTS release. The changes are not
> > currently required for operation, but upstream strongly recommends that
> > users
> > update.
>
> Maybe adding something like
> ", but upstream strongly recommends that users update for continued
> support."
>
> Upstream asks to use latest patch level version for support which
> includes access to the signature database.
>
> Speaking of latest patch version: Upstream released today .5. Would you
> prefer to wait with this until I upload .5 to unstable and
> stable/oldstable for this (and avoiding a second announcement)?
I assume a direct update to .5 is preferred so I attached it here.
Regarding the wording: in [0] upstream says that they are going to
block 0.102 and earlier from database updates so we should be good. That
means they did not mention to block previous 0.103 releases so there is
probably no need to add stronger wording as I suggested.
The NEWS file mentions a CVE which looks harmless in typical mail server
setup since it requires an additional option for scanning.
I have it in unstable since the 12th and deployed the Buster version on
a server and had the regular testing for Bullseye.
[0] https://blog.clamav.net/2022/01/clamav-01035-and-01042-security-patch.html
> > Regards,
> >
> > Adam
Sebastian
diff -Nru clamav-0.103.4+dfsg/clamav-milter/clamav-milter.c clamav-0.103.5+dfsg/clamav-milter/clamav-milter.c
--- clamav-0.103.4+dfsg/clamav-milter/clamav-milter.c 2021-11-02 16:47:46.0 +0100
+++ clamav-0.103.5+dfsg/clamav-milter/clamav-milter.c 2022-01-11 00:17:45.0 +0100
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
/*
- * Copyright (C) 2013-2021 Cisco Systems, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
+ * Copyright (C) 2013-2022 Cisco Systems, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
* Copyright (C) 2008-2013 Sourcefire, Inc.
*
* Author: aCaB
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@
sigset_t sigset;
struct sigaction act;
-const char * user_name = NULL;
+const char *user_name = NULL;
cl_initialize_crypto();
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@
printf("\n");
printf(" Clam AntiVirus: Milter Mail Scanner %s\n", get_version());
printf(" By The ClamAV Team: https://www.clamav.net/about.html#credits\n;);
-printf(" (C) 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc.\n");
+printf(" (C) 2022 Cisco Systems, Inc.\n");
printf("\n");
printf("%s [-c ]\n\n", argv[0]);
printf("\n");
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@
}
free(pt);
-if ((opt = optget(opts, "User"))->enabled){
+if ((opt = optget(opts, "User"))->enabled) {
user_name = opt->strarg;
}
@@ -419,7 +419,7 @@
if ((opt = optget(opts, "PidFile"))->enabled) {
FILE *fd;
mode_t old_umask = umask(0002);
-int err = 0;
+int err = 0;
if ((fd = fopen(opt->strarg, "w")) == NULL) {
logg("!Can't save PID in file %s\n", opt->strarg);
@@ -434,14 +434,14 @@
umask(old_umask);
#ifndef _WIN32
-if (0 == err){
+if (0 == err) {
/*If the file has already been created by a different user, it will just be
* rewritten by us, but not change the ownership, so do that explicitly.
*/
-if (0 == geteuid()){
-struct passwd * pw = getpwuid(0);
-int ret = lchown(opt->strarg, pw->pw_uid, pw->pw_gid);
-if (ret){
+if (0 == geteuid()) {
+struct passwd *pw = getpwuid(0);
+int ret = lchown(opt->strarg, pw->pw_uid, pw->pw_gid);
+if (ret) {
logg("!Can't change ownership of PID file %s '%s'\n", opt->strarg, strerror(errno));
err = 1;
}
@@ -449,7 +449,7 @@
}
#endif /*_WIN32*/
-if (err){
+if (err) {
localnets_free();
whitelist_free();
logg_close();
@@ -460,7 +460,7 @@
#ifndef _WIN32
dropPrivRet = drop_privileges(user_name, logg_file);
-if (dropPrivRet){
+if (dropPrivRet) {
optfree(opts);
return dropPrivRet;
}
@@ -468,7 +468,7 @@
/* We have been daemonized, and initialization is done. Signal
* the parent process so that it can exit cleanly.
*/
-if (parentPid != getpid()){ //we have been daemonized
+if (parentPid != getpid()) { //we have been daemonized
daemonize_signal_parent(parentPid);
}
#endif
diff -Nru clamav-0.103.4+dfsg/clamd/clamd.c
Bug#1003085: marked as done (small transition: libportal 0.5)
Your message dated Fri, 14 Jan 2022 19:15:26 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#1003085: small transition: libportal 0.5 has caused the Debian Bug report #1003085, regarding small transition: libportal 0.5 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1003085: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1003085 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition I'd like to upgrade libportal from 0.4 (currently in testing) to 0.5 (in experimental). It currently only has two rdeps: * xdg-desktop-portal only uses it for tests, and can be binNMU'd * gnome-builder needs a sourceful upload, which is on its way to experimental Ben file: https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libportal.html looks suitable. smcv --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2022-01-05 13:26:58, Simon McVittie wrote: > Control: forwarded -1 > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-libportal.html > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 at 11:12:54 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > > I'd like to upgrade libportal from 0.4 (currently in testing) to 0.5 > > > (in experimental). > > > > Go ahead. > > libportal and gnome-builder uploaded to unstable and built on release > architectures. Please binNMU xdg-desktop-portal when convenient, I think > this might be correct: > > nmu xdg-desktop-portal_1.12.1-1 . ANY . -m 'Rebuild with libportal 0.5 > (#1003085)' The old binaries got removed from testing. Closing Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher--- End Message ---
