* Benjamin Bannier benjamin.bann...@netronaut.de [2009-07-10 20:08:57 CEST]:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:45:41 +0200 Nico Golde n...@debian.org wrote:
I see roundcube-0.1.1-10~bpo40+2 still in backports. [..]
That's why I marked this bug as done with the unstable version.
Sorry, maybe I got
On Montag, 13. Juli 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
- in this case it was Holger Levsen. Though, I just asked him and he
said that he doesn't care about etch-backports.
Given that Holger gives a damn
thanks for your understanding and your well done summary of my position.
love,
Holger,
Hi,
On Montag, 13. Juli 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
- in this case it was Holger Levsen. Though, I just asked him and he
said that he doesn't care about etch-backports.
given that its not possible/desirable to have backports from squeeze in
etch-bpo (see
Hi,
thanks for your quick response.
I see roundcube-0.1.1-10~bpo40+2 still in backports. I presume this
doesn't include the patch to fix this specific issue.
I urge you to please make a version bump to backports since this is a
security issue.
Thanks,
Benjamin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi,
* Benjamin Bannier benjamin.bann...@netronaut.de [2009-07-10 17:35]:
thanks for your quick response.
I see roundcube-0.1.1-10~bpo40+2 still in backports. I presume this
doesn't include the patch to fix this specific issue.
That's why I marked this bug as done with the unstable
version.
Benjamin Bannier schrieb am Friday, den 10. July 2009:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:45:41 +0200
Nico Golde n...@debian.org wrote:
I see roundcube-0.1.1-10~bpo40+2 still in backports. [..]
That's why I marked this bug as done with the unstable version.
Sorry, maybe I got confused. I
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:45:41 +0200
Nico Golde n...@debian.org wrote:
I see roundcube-0.1.1-10~bpo40+2 still in backports. [..]
That's why I marked this bug as done with the unstable version.
Sorry, maybe I got confused. I reported this bug here because the
backports version was listed in
7 matches
Mail list logo
