(+cc: previous participants)
The Anarcat wrote:
I understand that, but how does that keep us from issuing [an]
update on security.debian.org?
[...]
People running stable are not necessarily running volatile and s-p-u.
Ah, I missed your point before. Keeping git broken in lenny is indeed
a
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:16:39AM +0300, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
(+cc: previous participants)
The Anarcat wrote:
I understand that, but how does that keep us from issuing [an]
update on security.debian.org?
[...]
People running stable are not necessarily running volatile and s-p-u.
Hi,
* The Anarcat anar...@koumbit.org [2010-09-22 00:32]:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:16:39AM +0300, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
[...]
* would set a weird precedent for errata that did not come about in
fixing a security-related bug
The regression was introduce by fixing a security-related
Hi,
Philipp Kern wrote on Tue, 7 Sep 2010 01:43:09 +0200:
I scheduled a binNMU. A quick fix is to upgrade to the version in
proposed-updates when it's available there latest tomorrow evening.
The binNMU is on the mirrors in proposed-updates for a few days now
and it works as expected.
Will
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:48:37PM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
Philipp Kern wrote on Tue, 7 Sep 2010 01:43:09 +0200:
I scheduled a binNMU. A quick fix is to upgrade to the version in
proposed-updates when it's available there latest tomorrow evening.
The binNMU is on the mirrors in
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 15:48:37 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
Will it come to stable only with the next minor release in a few
months or will there be an earlier propagation to stable?
stable doesn't change outside of point releases (that would break
Release.gpg, for one thing).
Cheers,
Julien
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:30:03AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
Thanks for the analysis. Do you think it would be worth
cherry-picking
the fix from v1.6.0.3~81^2 (Fix permission bits on sources checked
out
with an overtight umask, 2008-08-21[1]) to lenny to prevent this
from
happening
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 10:55:32PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Philipp Kern wrote:
Thanks for the bug report. Indeed the git-core package is broken on
lenny/i386 since the last point release on Saturday. Sadly nobody caught
that bug when the package was in proposed-updates. It's
Hi,
* Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org [2010-09-07 11:25]:
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 12:56:05AM -0500, Adam Mercer wrote:
[...]
Thanks for the bug report. Indeed the git-core package is broken on
lenny/i386 since the last point release on Saturday. Sadly nobody caught
that bug when the package
Nico Golde wrote:
I'm wondering what this was. I'm building in a clean chroot and to be honest
I
have no idea what went wrong. The umask in this chroot is 022.
Hmm, odd. Do you unpack from within the chroot or are the sources
unpacked in advance?
You can find a package designed to avoid
Hi,
* Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com [2010-09-07 13:12]:
Nico Golde wrote:
I'm wondering what this was. I'm building in a clean chroot and to be
honest I
have no idea what went wrong. The umask in this chroot is 022.
Hmm, odd. Do you unpack from within the chroot or are the
Package: git-core
Version: 1:1.5.6.5-3+lenny3.1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Since the last update of git-core the templates in /usr/share/git-core are
marked with permissions -rw-r- (owned by root:root), so general users can't
access them. Therefore when a new
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 12:56:05AM -0500, Adam Mercer wrote:
Since the last update of git-core the templates in /usr/share/git-core are
marked with permissions -rw-r- (owned by root:root), so general users
can't access them. Therefore when a new repository is cloned the process
failed as
Hi Philipp,
Philipp Kern wrote:
Thanks for the bug report. Indeed the git-core package is broken on
lenny/i386 since the last point release on Saturday. Sadly nobody caught
that bug when the package was in proposed-updates. It's only i386, that's
affected, because of oddities on the
14 matches
Mail list logo
