On 03/18/2018 09:24 AM, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Tyler Hicks:
>>> 3. Give me the go ahead and then I'll:
>>>
>>>- refresh the {debian,ubuntu}/gbp-pq branches
>>>- merge the {debian,ubuntu}/gbp-pq branches respectively into
>>>
On 03/14/2018 10:46 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 02/28/2018 04:56 AM, intrigeri wrote:
>> It would be great if we could do that before 18.04 LTS is too deeply
>> frozen so you can benefit, in the next 5 years, from all the goodness
>> ubuntu/master..debian/master has accumu
On 02/28/2018 04:56 AM, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Steve Beattie:
>> Sorry, I've been swamped coping with Meltdown/Spectre. I took a brief
>> look at the topic git branches and it seems like a modest enough
>> organizational improvement to me[1].
>
> OK. To me being able to use gbp-pq is a
Package: libseccomp
Version: 2.3.1-2.1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu artful ubuntu-patch
Dear Maintainer,
While doing some work on libseccomp in Ubuntu, I noticed that the exit
code of the `make check` target was being ignored despite
Eric Biggers has fixed this bug in the upstream GNU GRUB project:
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/grub.git/commit/?id=734668238fcc0ef691a080839e04f33854fa133a
I prepared an upload to fix this issue in Ubuntu Artful and it required
minor backporting of the test suite changes. Maybe you'll
On 2015-07-29 15:36:42, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> I've attached fixes for the master and 1.6 schroot branches. They fork
> off a process that changes root to the chroot base path before calling
> realpath(3) on the mount destination.
>
> Note that I'm still pretty confused by a p
On 2015-08-12 21:08:33, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > > Also recent mount allow you to specify mount options like "shared",
> > > "slave", "private" so we should respect this choice when
> >
Package: openssh
Version: 1:6.9p1-1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu wily ubuntu-patch
Dear Maintainer,
We've received a couple bugs in Ubuntu regarding the lack of support for
Linux Audit login event support:
On 2015-08-11 22:51:33, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Tyler Hicks wrote:
That has worked pretty well for many filesystems that would be mounted
at /home/$USER. However, I've recently had a lot of eCryptfs users
reporting issues when using systemd as their init system
I
couldn't wrap my head around it. Any insight to what it is doing and
whether we can remove it now?
Tyler
From 86a39d878bc1b6ea59b4f354f03b635014b720a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tyler Hicks tyhi...@canonical.com
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 02:11:07 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] libexec-mount: Resolve
On 2015-07-15 19:19:23, Roger Leigh wrote:
On 15/07/2015 17:47, Tyler Hicks wrote:
Hello - I'm sending a friendly poke in hopes that I can get a review for
my proposed patch. The unpatched behavior is a considerable usability
issue on systems that use systemd, schroot, and a filesystem mounted
Hello - I'm sending a friendly poke in hopes that I can get a review for
my proposed patch. The unpatched behavior is a considerable usability
issue on systems that use systemd, schroot, and a filesystem mounted at
/home/$USER. I'd prefer upstream review before I apply the patch to
schroot in
db5cbc9dd57fc3a13f3f1fb405aa2cc1d2d6d7d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tyler Hicks tyhi...@canonical.com
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 12:27:40 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] libexec-mount: Make bind mounts use private mount propagation
When creating a bind mount, on a Linux system, mark the target as
private. When creating
Package: audit
Version: 1:2.3.2-2
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu trusty ubuntu-patch
Dear Maintainer,
While merging the Debian package into Ubuntu, I was looking into the new
augenrules feature. I noticed that it didn't work when
Package: ruby1.9.1
Version: 1.9.3.194-7
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu raring ubuntu-patch
Dear Maintainer,
While merging 1.9.3.194-7 into Ubuntu Raring, I noticed a new error in
one of the build tests. test_open_nul throws a NoMethodError
Package: ruby1.9.1
Version: 1.9.3.194-7
Severity: minor
Dear Maintainer,
The ruby1.9.1 package contains a fix for CVE-2011-1005
(20120927-cve_2011_1005.patch). I submitted that fix to upstream and
Debian[1] when I discovered that Ruby 1.9.x failed a regression test for
CVE-2011-1005, despite the
Package: audit
Version: 1:2.2.2-1ubuntu2
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu raring ubuntu-patch
Dear Maintainer,
The upstream audit source embeds its own version of libev and the
project's build system uses the embedded version rather than
On 2012-10-10 15:04:10, Sebastian Heinlein wrote:
Applying all 5 patches fixed all issues for me.
Good to hear!
I see a lot of errors in dmesg, but these seem to be related to the full
disk write operation:
This is just eCryptfs being too chatty in error situations. This is
expected at the
On 2012-10-01 11:04:30, Tyler Hicks wrote:
I'll be sure to update this bug when they've applied the fix upstream.
Ok, the fix is public:
http://svn.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi?view=revisionrevision=37068
It ended up being more complicated than I initially thought. The
vulnerability
On 2012-09-30 17:47:30, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
Thanks for submitting this. Did you notify upstream of the fact that the
1.9 series is actually affected by this issue?
Yes, right after I filed this bug. After speaking with upstream, they
will be applying a slightly different fix. You probably
+ Rather than using the certificates packaged in the upstream sources to verify
+ server SSL certificates, use the certificates provided by the ca-certificates
+ package.
+Author: Tyler Hicks tyhi...@canonical.com
+Forwarded: not-needed
+Index: rubygems-1.8.24/lib/rubygems/remote_fetcher.rb
the certificates packaged in the upstream sources to verify
+ server SSL certificates, use the certificates provided by the ca-certificates
+ package.
+Author: Tyler Hicks tyhi...@canonical.com
+Forwarded: not-needed
+Index: ruby1.9.1-1.9.3.194/lib/rubygems/remote_fetcher.rb
Package: ruby1.9.1
Version: 1.9.3.194-1
Severity: grave
Tags: patch security
Justification: user security hole
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu quantal ubuntu-patch
Dear Maintainer,
While running some regression tests I discovered that 1.9.3.194-1 is
vulnerable to
Package: xmlrpc-c
Version: 1.16.33-3.1
Followup-For: Bug #682329
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu quantal ubuntu-patch
Dear Maintainer,
In Ubuntu, the attached patch was applied to achieve the following:
* Fix dependencies of xmlrpc-api-utils
- debian/control:
Package: xmlrpc-c
Version: 1.16.33-3.1
Severity: grave
Tags: patch security
Justification: user security hole
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu quantal ubuntu-patch
Dear Maintainer,
In Ubuntu, the attached patch was applied to achieve the following:
* Run the tests
Package: xmlrpc-c
Version: 1.06.27-1
Followup-For: Bug #687672
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu quantal ubuntu-patch
I've also backported the same changes to 1.06.27-1 for our Lucid
xmlrpc-c package. It looks to apply cleanly to the Squeeze package.
Here's the
Package: t1lib
Version: 5.1.2-3
Severity: grave
Tags: patch security
Justification: user security hole
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu precise ubuntu-patch
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2011-0764
*** /tmp/tmpP7Dzmm
In Ubuntu, the attached patch
27 matches
Mail list logo
