Am 22.02.2017 um 19:58 schrieb Jacob Luna Lundberg:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Is there an ETA for old-sec? The latest version for wheezy is still
> 7.0.28-4+deb7u10 which is impacted by the regression (status 400).
Hello,
I have uploaded 7.0.28-4+deb7u11 a few minutes ago. The announcement
will foll
Hello all,
Is there an ETA for old-sec? The latest version for wheezy is still
7.0.28-4+deb7u10 which is impacted by the regression (status 400).
Thanks,
-Jacob
On 20.02.2017 17:20, Samuel Wolf wrote:
> A fixed version for Jessie will released as deb8u9 with the next point
> release?
The security team will release a regression update soon.
Regards,
Markus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
A fixed version for Jessie will released as deb8u9 with the next point
release?
@ Allen,
thanks for try the patch.
@ Markus,
thank you for the help.
Can't build tomcat7 at the moment, but guess it will fix my issue as well.
2017-02-17 21:20 GMT+01:00 Allen Hadden :
> > Thanks for confirming that the last revision is not working as expected.
> > Now we are back at the beginn
> Thanks for confirming that the last revision is not working as expected.
> Now we are back at the beginning. Could you apply this patch [1] and
> report back if it resolves your issue please?
Yes! That fixed it for us.
Sorry again for the run around.
Allen
On 17.02.2017 20:50, Allen Hadden wrote:
>> Let's recapitulate: You are currently running +deb7u4 from April 2016
>> which is the last good version for you and you see 400 errors when you
>> use +deb7u5 or any later version up to +deb7u10, correct? Then this is a
>> different issue because Samuel r
> Let's recapitulate: You are currently running +deb7u4 from April 2016
> which is the last good version for you and you see 400 errors when you
> use +deb7u5 or any later version up to +deb7u10, correct? Then this is a
> different issue because Samuel reported that the 400 errors occurred
> when h
First off, thanks for your patience. The thing I was missing was that the
build procedure for Debian includes applying patches to the code. I was
following the build instructions from the BUILDING.txt file, which doesn't
include the Debian-specific instructions. That completely explains what
On 17.02.2017 14:24, Allen Hadden wrote:
>> That is strange. You have mentioned in your previous email that you
>> downgraded tomcat7 in Wheezy to version 7.0.28-4+deb7u4. Are you sure
>> that you are not comparing this version with 7.0.28-4+deb7u10? Why
>> didn't you downgrade to 7.0.28-4+deb7u9 i
> That is strange. You have mentioned in your previous email that you
> downgraded tomcat7 in Wheezy to version 7.0.28-4+deb7u4. Are you sure
> that you are not comparing this version with 7.0.28-4+deb7u10? Why
> didn't you downgrade to 7.0.28-4+deb7u9 in the first place? This would
> explain the d
On 16.02.2017 23:39, Allen Hadden wrote:
> The plot thickens! I created a local build from git using the
> 7.0.28-4+deb7u10 tag. Interestingly when I did that I was unable to
> reproduce the problem. Originally I suspected that there was something
> wrong with my build. But after some digging,
The plot thickens! I created a local build from git using the
7.0.28-4+deb7u10 tag. Interestingly when I did that I was unable to
reproduce the problem. Originally I suspected that there was something
wrong with my build. But after some digging, I'm starting to suspect the
official build.
Hello,
On 16.02.2017 17:38, Allen Hadden wrote:
> We are seeing the same thing that Samuel Wolf described, but from our
> web UI and with 7.0.28-4+deb7u10. We get seemingly random 400 HTTP returns.
>
> We downgraded to 7.0.28-4+deb7u4 and that problem went away.
>
> Unfortunately in our environ
We are seeing the same thing that Samuel Wolf described, but from our web
UI and with 7.0.28-4+deb7u10. We get seemingly random 400 HTTP returns.
We downgraded to 7.0.28-4+deb7u4 and that problem went away.
Unfortunately in our environment the Tomcat-side Java exception is not
being logged, so
15 matches
Mail list logo