781232 +tags patch
thanks
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:34:49AM +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi Aron,
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 02:35:49PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> > tags 781232 +patch
> > thanks
> >
> > Hi Salvatore, Hi Aron,
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:02:48AM +0200, Salvatore Bonacco
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I did that because I believe that this was the correct course of action
> given the lack of proper fix upsream, not because it was an easy solution.
For the record, upstream pushed a "proper" fix now:
https://git.gnome.org/browse/libxml2/commit/?id=ef7
On 2015-09-07 13:39:57 +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> I'm talking about #781232 only since this is the bug this thread is
> attached to and stable is affected by that one (see the version
> information of this bug). I filed that bug initially.
OK, I didn't remember that two unrelated bugs were disc
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 12:42:32PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-09-07 12:26:22 +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:41:55AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > Well, stable is not affected by this bug, but by other security
> > > problems. The patches are availa
On 2015-09-07 12:26:22 +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:41:55AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Well, stable is not affected by this bug, but by other security
> > problems. The patches are available here, so that I don't see any
> > problem.
>
> Stable is affected by thi
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:41:55AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-09-07 10:25:02 +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> > Hi Aron,
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 04:07:38PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> > [..snip..]
> > > Agreed on fixing unstable first if possible, but it's only ideal case
> > > that we re
On 2015-09-07 10:25:02 +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi Aron,
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 04:07:38PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> [..snip..]
> > Agreed on fixing unstable first if possible, but it's only ideal case
> > that we really want to wait it migrate to testing. Stable is for
> > production, not an
Hi Aron,
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 04:07:38PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
[..snip..]
> Agreed on fixing unstable first if possible, but it's only ideal case
> that we really want to wait it migrate to testing. Stable is for
> production, not another testing for testing that need to wait for
> testing.
We
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
>> I'm not the maintainer, but I think that it is probably cleaner to
>> have testing version = stable version until this bug is fixed (it
>
> No, absolutely not. We’re in the midst of a hell of a
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I'm not the maintainer, but I think that it is probably cleaner to
> have testing version = stable version until this bug is fixed (it
No, absolutely not. We’re in the midst of a hell of a transition,
holding back packages just for fun isn’t helping.
Hi Aron,
On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 02:35:49PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> tags 781232 +patch
> thanks
>
> Hi Salvatore, Hi Aron,
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:02:48AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Hi Aron,
> >
> > Specific for the issue now seen for #781232: Looked shortly at
> > https://
tags 781232 +patch
thanks
Hi Salvatore, Hi Aron,
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:02:48AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi Aron,
>
> Specific for the issue now seen for #781232: Looked shortly at
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=731063#c1 According to that
> comment the original patc
On 2015-09-05 08:49:35 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > 2. Given (1), if testing version = stable version, it is as easy to
> >fix testing.
>
> This just proves that you don't know how Debian works. A fix for testing
> must come via unstable not f
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> My argument is that:
>>
>> 1. stable must not have security issues, i.e. all security issues
>>should be fixed ASAP. AFAIK, security issues in stable are
>>generally fixed before unstabl
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> My argument is that:
>
> 1. stable must not have security issues, i.e. all security issues
>should be fixed ASAP. AFAIK, security issues in stable are
>generally fixed before unstable.
No, that's not the general case. And feel free to fix stab
On 2015-09-04 21:36:53 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2015-09-04 13:59:02 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Aron Xu wrote:
> > > > I don't want to close it, nor I want make this version to testing, so
> > > > please don't lo
On Saturday, September 5, 2015, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2015-09-04 13:59:02 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Aron Xu wrote:
> > > > I don't want to close it, nor I want make this version to testing, so
> > > > ple
Hi,
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2015-09-04 13:59:02 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Aron Xu wrote:
> > > I don't want to close it, nor I want make this version to testing, so
> > > please don't lower the severity, as said above.
> >
> > Why don't you wa
On 2015-09-04 13:59:02 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Aron Xu wrote:
> > I don't want to close it, nor I want make this version to testing, so
> > please don't lower the severity, as said above.
>
> Why don't you want this version into testing?
I'm not the maintainer, but I
Hello,
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015, Aron Xu wrote:
> It's not a reason that you just revert back to an older version
> because it's easy to do so. If you want to make it the same version,
> choose the harder but more correct way as libxml2 is not a trivial
> package with low impact.
Hey, don't give me le
Control: severity 766884 serious
Please don't change the severity level and no ping-pong game please.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Control: severity 766884 important
>
> Hi Aron,
>
> please keep me in copy as I'm not subscribed to
> debian-xml-sgml-p...@lists.alioth.d
Control: severity 766884 important
Hi Aron,
please keep me in copy as I'm not subscribed to
debian-xml-sgml-p...@lists.alioth.debian.org... I just discovered your
reply by chance.
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Aron Xu wrote:
> Let's reopen #766884 for tracking, it's not really fixed, but just
> avoided.
Hi Aron,
Specific for the issue now seen for #781232: Looked shortly at
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=731063#c1 According to that
comment the original patch lead to more issues (e.g. the one which we
see now) and more patches were applied. I have though not tried to
skim trough to ch
Control: reopen 766884
Let's reopen #766884 for tracking, it's not really fixed, but just
avoided. Unfortunately #781232 is opened. I would like to block this
version to testing as it's not the proper way of fixing the problem
(but it is indeed the most straightforward way of avoiding it).
Mainte
Hi,
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> I completely agree that libxml2 should be reverted to 2.9.1 (I have
> never used 2.9.2 due to this bug).
I just did this.
> And IMHO, the new package should probably break libxml-libxml-perl
> 2.0116+dfsg-4 due to an annoying and useless test of
On 2015-08-20 13:54:49 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello libxml2 maintainers,
>
> I'm somewhat annoyed at the fact that libxml2 has been broken for months
> with the bug 766884. It does not look like upstream will fix it soon.
> In the mean time we have unbuildable packages in sid (I'm affecte
Hello libxml2 maintainers,
I'm somewhat annoyed at the fact that libxml2 has been broken for months
with the bug 766884. It does not look like upstream will fix it soon.
In the mean time we have unbuildable packages in sid (I'm affected with
publican) so I would like you to consider uploading a
2.
27 matches
Mail list logo
