Bug#1067126: RFS: lighttpd/1.4.76-2 -- light, fast, functional web server

lighttpd-1.4.76-2 passes autopkgtests and expected CI tests, and is tagged. (This is a non-DD maintainer upload.) * Package name : lighttpd Version : 1.4.76-2 Upstream contact : team+light...@tracker.debian.org * URL : https://lighttpd.net/ * License :

Bug#1067126: RFS: lighttpd/1.4.76-1 -- light, fast, functional web server

lighttpd-1.4.76-1 passes autopkgtests and expected CI tests, and is tagged. (This is a non-DD maintainer upload.) * Package name : lighttpd Version : 1.4.76-1 Upstream contact : team+light...@tracker.debian.org * URL : https://lighttpd.net/ * License :

Bug#1067126: RFS: lighttpd/1.4.75-1 -- light, fast, functional web server

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: gs-bugs.debian@gluelogic.com Dear mentors, I am looking for a DD sponsor for my package "lighttpd": https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lighttpd/ I am an upstream lighttpd developer and have participated in maintaining lighttpd on

Bug#1064572: RFS: lighttpd/1.4.74-1 -- light, fast, functional web server

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: gs-bugs.debian@gluelogic.com Dear mentors, I am looking for a DD sponsor for my package "lighttpd": https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lighttpd/ I am an upstream lighttpd developer and have participated in maintaining lighttpd on

Bug#1057385: lighttpd FTCBFS: host CFLAGS leak into build compiler invocation

On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:49:30AM +0100, Emanuele Rocca wrote: > With the attached patch lighttpd cleanly cross-builds from source. Thanks, Emanuele. A slightly different patch: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lighttpd/-/commit/a7d695d59c9a8bffe154aae29e335102beaaf3f2 was committed a few

Bug#1055131: RFS: lighttpd/1.4.73-1 -- light, fast, functional web server

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: gs-bugs.debian@gluelogic.com Dear mentors, I am looking for a DD sponsor for my package "lighttpd": https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lighttpd/ I am an upstream lighttpd developer and have participated in maintaining lighttpd on

Bug#1040525: Lighttpd disregards ssl.dh-file setting

Repeating: lighttpd TLS configuration recommendations supercede the issue reported here. (https://wiki.lighttpd.net/Docs_SSL) > I now removed that cipher list (falling back to the default), and this > disabled the 2 remaining ciphers (DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 and > DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256)

Bug#1034586: always reports inactive/expired certificate on armhf

Marco, please review my previous messages and try to help provide additional information. Thank you. Glenn

Bug#1040525: Lighttpd disregards ssl.dh-file setting

On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 09:28:24AM +, Alain Knaff wrote: > Package: lighttpd > Version: 1.4.69-1 > > Since our upgrade to Debian 12, lighttpd now uses insecure > Diffie-Hellman parameters > c90fdaa22168c234c4c6628b80dc1cd129024e088a67cc74020bbea63 >

Bug#1037099: RFS: lighttpd/1.4.71-1 -- light, fast, functional web server

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: gs-bugs.debian@gluelogic.com Dear mentors, I am looking for a DD sponsor for my package "lighttpd": https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lighttpd/ I am an upstream lighttpd developer and have participated in maintaining lighttpd on

Bug#1034586: always reports inactive/expired certificate on armhf

Macro, please review my previous messages and try to help provide additional information. Thank you. Glenn

Bug#1035926: lighttpd conf-enabled files cannot override IPV6 port number

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:49:21AM +0200, Michael Moore wrote: ... > Issue and suggested fix: > === > In lighttpd.conf the includes for conf-enabled/*.conf happens after passing > server.port to the use-ipv6.pl script. Re-ordering these lines so that the > conf files are included

Bug#979308: This Bug is already fixed in Ubuntu

Ubuntu fixed this bug with jq (1.6-2.1ubuntu1) hirsute; urgency=medium  [ Alex Murray ]  * Fix fromdate when local time is during daylight savings (LP: #1910162)    - d/p/fix-ftbfs-when-localtime-is-dst.patch: Backport upstream patch  which ensures fromdate uses the correct time during

Bug#1023697: can wolfssl bug be closed?

Can this be closed? Are there any action items remaining for this bug? I am still getting messages that packages depending on wolfssl are "marked for autoremoval from testing on 2023-01-27" Thank you. Glenn

Bug#1021021: wolfssl: CVE-2022-38152 CVE-2022-38153 CVE-2022-39173

> I plan to upload version 5.5.1 in the near future. Felix, a month has passed and we are still waiting for an upload. Failure to upload a version with security fixes within the next few days will result in wolfssl and packages which depend on wolfssl to be removed from Debian Testing. Please

Bug#955811: [pgbackrest] Binary moved from /usr/bin to /bin

Package: pgbackrest Version: 2.25-2 Severity: normal --- Please enter the report below this line. --- Hi, >From 2.14-1 to 2.25-2, the main binary moved from /usr/bin to /bin. I know that we should have merged /usr but it should either be mentioned in the changelog, or revert the change. For

Bug#955779: [miniupnpd] iptables-init.sh does not create POSTROUTING

Package: miniupnpd Version: 2.1-6.1 Severity: normal --- Please enter the report below this line. --- Hi, According to https://github.com/miniupnp/miniupnp/issues/334 some initialization logic was lost in iptables-init.sh. It was reinstated in

Bug#938987: Overly restrictive CapabilityBoundingSet

Thank you very much! Adding CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE solved it for me as well. Not sure how many hours it would have taken for me to figure it out. Does systemd or the linux kernel log capability violations somewhere? (is it even possible) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Bug#942562: Use opencv.pc

Hi, Is there any reason to use opencv4.pc as filename? Previously, it was opencv.pc, so now, we need to modify all references to it. Since pkg-config already provides a way to check version, I think it's better to keep the old unversioned name. Have a nice day, Adrien

Bug#592834: grub-efi-amd64: File descriptor leaked on lvs invocation

Hey there, got this warning, dunno why, never read this before. Here's what I did before I got this warning. Be aware that I use parrot 4.6, which is based on debian but is a rolling distribution. The not upgraded (helt back) packages are some nvidia packages, not needed on my system (no nvidia

Bug#903815: ITP: pw -- A simple command-line password manager

> This is called proof by counter-example. > If you cannot do this, and if nobody else can do this, then you cannot > claim that it is not safe to use this script. This is not a valid argument. Nobody can yet prove (by example) that it is not safe to go near a black hole. But it is not safe. The

Bug#903491: [marble]

Package: marble Version: 4:17.08.3-3 --- Please enter the report below this line. --- Upstream bug: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394517 So nobody has proposed something yet. Since contributing to Marble is a bit complicated (I don't have any account for now), here is a small patch.

Bug#893972: [borgbackup] msgpack-python>=0.4.6 distribution was not found

After another apt update; apt upgrade, everything is working fine… I don't know if it was linked, but there was an update for:    python3-pkg-resources (38.5.2-1 => 39.0.1-1)    python3-setuptools (38.5.2-1 => 39.0.1-1) Anyway, this can be closed for me. Sorry for the disturbance. Adrien

Bug#843589: Change severity

Hi, I don't really know if this should be an RC bug, but this package has entered testing. And as such, migration is not possible without fetching source package. Adrien

Bug#830074: fixed in iodine 0.7.0-5

Sorry for being late on all of this, but I have a few remarks on this. First, thanks for the service file, and the long explanation. Regarding socket activation, I currently have this (custom) socket unit: [Unit] Description=Iodine socket [Socket] # For now, listen only in IPv4

Bug#830683: Missing dependency on module-udev?

Le 14/07/2016 à 13:51, Scott Leggett a écrit : > > If a package really does recommend other packages which are useless, you > should file a bug on that package, not just start blindly using > --no-install-recommends everywhere. It is a never ending debate. If installing recommended packages is the

Bug#830683: Missing dependency on module-udev?

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:37:01 -0300 Felipe Sateler wrote: > > Do you have disabled installation of Recommends? > Hi, I guess he did, just like me, because installing recommends often leads to a workload of useless packages. Even if I totally understand that the packager is

Bug#825748: (no subject)

Additionnal informations: python Python 2.7.11+ (default, May 9 2016, 15:54:33) [GCC 5.3.1 20160429] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import requests; requests.__version__.split('.') Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in

Bug#564936: grub-pc: reproducable

Package: grub-pc Severity: normal I can also reproduce this problem with grub 1.98~20100115-1. Removing grub.cfg lets grub go into it's recovery prompt. Reinstalling grub does not fix anything. Downgrading to 1.98~20100107-1 makes everyting work again. -- Package-specific info:

Bug#520967: SCSI HDD Issues with 2009.03.22 Nightly

Package: installation-reports Boot method: Minimal Netinst from CD-R Image version: http://laotzu.acc.umu.se/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/i386/iso-cd/debian-testing-i386-businesscard.iso Date: 2009.03.22 Machine: Dell Precision 670 Processor: 2x Xeon 3.6 w/hyperthreading enabled

Bug#323032: Same problem two years later with the last upgrade

Hello, right after this morning last upgrade, my proftp server and my webmin stopped to work throwing out these errors : /var/log/webmin/miniserv.error:/usr/bin/perl: relocation error: /lib/libresolv.so.2: symbol __res_iclose, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time

Bug#325689: looking at it

i don't have debian but if those who do help then i'm sure we can figure this out. it's a high priority for me that the linux client runs great. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]