979 in busybox-udeb.
>
> Should we (RT) unblock it now or do you prefer waiting (as I
> understand it there is d-i release coming up).
>
> unblock busybox/1:1.30.1-4
If you see a package that gets uploaded with a patch of mine for a bug
report I opened, mentioning I'd like to s
nd it there is d-i release coming up).
unblock busybox/1:1.30.1-4
Thanks,
~Niels
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 03:29:03PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > This probably counts as a d-i ack, but an explicit ack would be nice.
>
> I probably really wanted to get stuff pushed to git first, but now that
> it's done… here's an explicit d-i ack for you.
Added unblock-udeb.
Cheers,
Control: retitle -1 unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1
Control: tag -1 confirmed
Ivo De Decker (2015-02-21):
> Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
> Control: tags -1 d-i
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:30:50PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > I just did so and uplo
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
Control: tags -1 d-i
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:30:50PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > I just did so and uploaded 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1 to t-p-u.
I unblocked it, but it needs a d-i ack.
> Please push both your jessie branch and tag to git.
This probably counts as
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:30:50PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois
wrote:
> Mehdi Dogguy (2015-02-18):
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 08:52:05AM +0100, Ivo De Decker
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Could you do a new upload with only the security fix?
> > >
> >
> > I just did so and uploaded 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1 t
Mehdi Dogguy (2015-02-18):
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:30:50PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois
> wrote:
> > Please push both your jessie branch and tag to git.
>
> I don't have write access to d-i repos.
Wrong.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Mehdi Dogguy (2015-02-18):
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 08:52:05AM +0100, Ivo De Decker
> wrote:
> >
> > Could you do a new upload with only the security fix?
> >
>
> I just did so and uploaded 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1 to t-p-u.
Please push both your jessie branch and tag to git.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signat
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 08:52:05AM +0100, Ivo De Decker
wrote:
>
> Could you do a new upload with only the security fix?
>
I just did so and uploaded 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1 to t-p-u.
Regards,
--
Mehdi Dogguy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "u
On Thursday 11 December 2014 08:52:05 Ivo De Decker wrote:
> > > #768876 is tagged jessie-ignore so I'm really unconvinced by the
> > > debian/rules changes.
> >
> > It is jessie-ignore just to be non-RC. The fun with static linking
> > and bugs it discovered shows that proper Built-Using field is
11.12.2014 13:02, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
Hello
> can you please still push your master branch and tags to the git
> repository? Last commit there points to debian/1.22.0-9 which is
> 5 revisions old, at least if I'm reading cgit and gitk properly.
Oh yeah. I'm sorry about that. Pushed no
Michael Tokarev (2014-12-11):
> 11.12.2014 10:52, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> []
> > As the libc issue with the static binary seems to be fixed in the libc
> > version
> > in both jessie and sid, the only remaining issue is the missing build-using,
> > which can wait till after jessie.
> >
> > Could
11.12.2014 10:52, Ivo De Decker wrote:
[]
> As the libc issue with the static binary seems to be fixed in the libc version
> in both jessie and sid, the only remaining issue is the missing build-using,
> which can wait till after jessie.
>
> Could you do a new upload with only the security fix?
I
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi Michael,
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:08:49PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > #768876 is tagged jessie-ignore so I'm really unconvinced by the
> > debian/rules changes.
>
> It is jessie-ignore just to be non-RC. The fun with static linking
> and bugs it discovered s
Michael Tokarev (2014-12-01):
> So, can someone please tell me what's wrong with this unblock request?
I did write in my first reply:
“At this stage, I'd rather see the security fix only.”
> I can try to fix built-using generation adding gcc to the mix but I'm
> afraid to do that this late in
So, can someone please tell me what's wrong with
this unblock request?
I can try to fix built-using generation adding gcc
to the mix but I'm afraid to do that this late in
the release cycle, especially after it required so
many iterations to get the most important in this
context part of built-usi
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Um. Maybe we should assume exact versions of software running in
> buildds too?
No, only things that end up in the binaries.
> BTW, how about somethig like gcc -v (I'm not sure it is the right
> option actually) which shows all libs it actually used
28.11.2014 18:06, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>
>>> ‣ intimate knowledge of the build system required, so you know
>>> what precidely is pulled in (reading shlibs:Depends from the
>>> build of the shared version is almost certainly wrong)
>>
>> Why it i
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > ‣ intimate knowledge of the build system required, so you know
> > what precidely is pulled in (reading shlibs:Depends from the
> > build of the shared version is almost certainly wrong)
>
> Why it is wrong? To be this looks like the most accur
28.11.2014 15:11, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>
>> (The Built-Using field generation is a bit fun here: I asked on IRC
>> how people identify which libc is in use, and got various somewhat-
>> incpmplete replies (the prob is that on different arches, libc p
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> (The Built-Using field generation is a bit fun here: I asked on IRC
> how people identify which libc is in use, and got various somewhat-
> incpmplete replies (the prob is that on different arches, libc package
> is named differently). So I invented m
27.11.2014 19:00, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> (Putting on my d-i RM fedora.)
Thank you for your review.
> Michael Tokarev (2014-11-27):
>> Please unblock package busybox. Last upload has one security bugfix
>> (CVE-2014-4607, #768945), the fix is from upstream stable branch,
>> fixing an integer o
(Putting on my d-i RM fedora.)
Michael Tokarev (2014-11-27):
> Please unblock package busybox. Last upload has one security bugfix
> (CVE-2014-4607, #768945), the fix is from upstream stable branch,
> fixing an integer overflow in lzo decompressor; it adds a Built-Using
> control field for busyb
sybox is used in d-i too, I kindly request for a
udeb-unblock too.
Previously I submitted an unblock request for busybox 1.22.0-10,
as #769129, but that turned out to be a bit preliminary because
of the fun with libc versioned build dependency iterations.
Thank you!
/mjt
unblock busybox/1:1.22
11.11.2014 18:08, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Please unblock package busybox. Last upload has one security bugfix
> (CVE-2014-4607, #768945), the fix is from upstream stable branch,
> fixing an integer overflow in lzo decompressor; it adds a Built-Using
> control field for busybox-static variant (#76
-- I took the contents of $shlibs:Depends
variable for the dynamically-linked version, and transformed it into
a list of sources required for Built-Using using dpkg-query.
There's no code changes except the lzo decompression bugfix, only
packaging changes.
Thank you!
/mjt
unblock busy
with 2-component versions :)
Complete debdiff is below.
Thank you for your time!
/mjt
unblock busybox/1:1.20.0-7
diff -Nru busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog
--- busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog 2012-07-22 12:30:25.0 +0400
+++ busybox-1.20.0/debian/change
Hello,
just replying for the sake of people reading -boot@ and wondering:
Philipp Kern (06/08/2012):
> This is fine from a RT point of view, thanks. But given that this package
> needs the d-i RM ACK and I couldn't find a definite answer in the archives,
> this still needs confirmation. KiBi?
I
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 12:33:36PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Please unblock package busybox.
>
> The version in unstable fixes a single bug - busybox basically was
> unusable on s390(x) due to a programming error. The single fix
> merely removes "__attribute__(aligned(1))" and similar quali
t makes it easy to group
upstream and non-upstream patches.
So the only change in this release is to remove forced-alignment of
static strings on s390(x).
Thanks!
/mjt
unblock busybox/1:1.20.0-6
diff -Nru busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog
--- busybox-1.20.0/debian
;m not yet sure how to do
>> it all properly.
>
> Looks pretty much OK to me.
Actually it is not: I learned too late. It is the wrong thing
to do -- to upload first and request to unblock later, when
there might be questionable changes.
>> unblock busybox/1:1.20.0-5
>
> R
> is exactly what this change does. This bugreport is here since
> Jan-2008, ie, for 4.5 years already.
That's appreciated (and works fine).
> P.S. This is my first unblock request, so I'm not yet sure how to do
> it all properly.
Looks pretty much OK to me.
> unb
s my first unblock request, so I'm not yet sure how to do
it all properly.
Thank you for your time!
unblock busybox/1:1.20.0-5
--- debdiff ---
diff -Nru busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog
--- busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog 2012-06-12 22:06:01.00
On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 04:23 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > Quoting Paul Wise (p...@debian.org):
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Would it be possible to unblock busybox? It has been waiting for 117
>
Hello,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Paul Wise (p...@debian.org):
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Would it be possible to unblock busybox? It has been waiting for 117
>> days with no RC bugs. If it is not unblocked then there will be no
>>
Quoting Paul Wise (p...@debian.org):
> Hi all,
>
> Would it be possible to unblock busybox? It has been waiting for 117
> days with no RC bugs. If it is not unblocked then there will be no
> udhcpc/udhcpc packages in squeeze (there were in lenny).
>
> [I'm subscribed
Hi all,
Would it be possible to unblock busybox? It has been waiting for 117
days with no RC bugs. If it is not unblocked then there will be no
udhcpc/udhcpc packages in squeeze (there were in lenny).
[I'm subscribed to -release, no need to CC]
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/Pau
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please unblock busybox/1:1.10.2-2.
Unblock.
Marc
--
BOFH #418:
Sysadmins busy fighting SPAM.
pgpuwGSs741HE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi folks
>
> Please unblock busybox/1:1.10.2-2.
>
> It fixes several regressions for updates from Etch.
No objection
- --
O T A V I
Hi folks
Please unblock busybox/1:1.10.2-2.
It fixes several regressions for updates from Etch.
Bastian
--
We Klingons believe as you do -- the sick should die. Only the strong
should live.
-- Kras, "Friday's Child", stardate 3497.2
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
40 matches
Mail list logo
