On 2024-03-31 19:42:24 [+], tony mancill wrote:
> Given what has unfolded over the past few days regarding xz-utils and
> CVE-2024-3094 [0], should we revisit the patches applied here and for
> #1063252? Are they still needed?
Not with the fallback to pre 5.4.x series but *I* don't think
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 01:50:47PM -0400, Jeremy Bícha wrote:
> The 3 test cases pass for me now with the uploaded 1.50+nmu2. Maybe my
> earlier test build used the old version of xz-utils. Thank you for
> your upload!
Given what has unfolded over the past few days regarding xz-utils and
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 5:16 PM Jeremy Bícha wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:13 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2024-03-12 09:26:32 [-0400], Jeremy Bícha wrote:
> > > > Could someone check this, please?
> > >
> > > Did you try running autopkgtests on this version? The
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 09:13:09PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> tried with 1.50+nmu2 which is in deferred for the next 11h. So tomorrow
> it should be all good.
Please make sure to commit the patch to the pristine-tar git repository
as well.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:13 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
>
> On 2024-03-12 09:26:32 [-0400], Jeremy Bícha wrote:
> > > Could someone check this, please?
> >
> > Did you try running autopkgtests on this version? The autopkgtests fail for
> > me.
>
> autopkgtests were the first thing that
On 2024-03-12 09:26:32 [-0400], Jeremy Bícha wrote:
> > Could someone check this, please?
>
> Did you try running autopkgtests on this version? The autopkgtests fail for
> me.
autopkgtests were the first thing that pointed me here and they passed.
If you say they fail for you then I may have
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 4:46 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
> I've prepared an NMU for pristine-tar (versioned as 1.50+nmu2) and
> uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I
> should delay it longer.
>
> Could someone check this, please?
Did you try running autopkgtests on
On 2024-03-11 21:23:03 [+], Amin Bandali wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2024-03-11 00:05:54 [+], Amin Bandali wrote:
> > > Hi Sebastian, all,
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Will this fix be enough for addressing all cases, though?
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 05:55:31PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 00:05:54 [+], Amin Bandali wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian, all,
> Hi,
>
> > Will this fix be enough for addressing all cases, though?
>
> I think so. Do you have a test case for me to check?
Not about
On 2024-03-11 00:05:54 [+], Amin Bandali wrote:
> Hi Sebastian, all,
Hi,
> Will this fix be enough for addressing all cases, though?
I think so. Do you have a test case for me to check?
> I'm thinking specifically of cases where tarball repacking
> is involved, for example when using
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:05:54AM +, Amin Bandali wrote:
> I believe there are also some cases where git-buildpackage
> itself does repacking
E.g. `gbp import-orig --filter`
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Sebastian, all,
Will this fix be enough for addressing all cases, though?
I'm thinking specifically of cases where tarball repacking
is involved, for example when using git-buildpackage's
"gbp import-orig --uscan" where uscan is used to download and
repack the upstream tarball, because the
Control: tags 1065751 + patch
Control: tags 1065751 + pending
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for pristine-tar (versioned as 1.50+nmu2) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer.
Could someone check this, please?
Regards.
Sebastian
diff -Nru
13 matches
Mail list logo
