Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

Hi Raphael, > would still be nice to see what it involves to actually update the > Packages* files when we want to remove a source package. Indeed. I had a poke but I'm afraid I'm not terribly «au fait» with that part of dak and related infrastructure… Thorsten, do you have any pointers or

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > Chris or Thorsten, could you possibly look into what it involves and see > > whether > > it's doable on the ftpmaster side ? > > Another, easier option would be to declare these packages as unsupported > security-wise. I pushed a commit

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

On 19/12/17 14:01, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: >>> Actually it got removed from wheezy in the mean time. Since it was >>> marked that way in dla-needed.txt, I pinged the ftp.d.o bug report and >>> pinged Chris Lamb (as ftp assistant) and the

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

Hi, On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > Actually it got removed from wheezy in the mean time. Since it was > > marked that way in dla-needed.txt, I pinged the ftp.d.o bug report and > > pinged Chris Lamb (as ftp assistant) and the package is gone from wheezy: > > > > $ rmadison

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

Hi! On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:01:07AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > After some more reading I think removing it should be ok anyway. I'll > > change the wording from "will be removed" to "may be removed" to allow > > us the freedom to

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

Hi Raphael, > Actually it got removed from wheezy in the mean time. Since it was > marked that way in dla-needed.txt, I pinged the ftp.d.o bug report and > pinged Chris Lamb (as ftp assistant) and the package is gone from wheezy: > > $ rmadison libnet-ping-external-perl >

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

Hello, On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > After some more reading I think removing it should be ok anyway. I'll > change the wording from "will be removed" to "may be removed" to allow > us the freedom to keep it if nobody takes the action to actually > remove it. Actually it got

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

Hi again After some more reading I think removing it should be ok anyway. I'll change the wording from "will be removed" to "may be removed" to allow us the freedom to keep it if nobody takes the action to actually remove it. // Ola On 17 December 2017 at 20:28, Ola Lundqvist

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

Hi I agree that it may not be the best to remove it then. I suggest we mark it as no-dsa then. Any objections? // Ola On 22 November 2017 at 21:00, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 08/11/17 20:19, Ola Lundqvist wrote: >> Hi >> >> Considering that this package is about to be

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 09:00:59PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 08/11/17 20:19, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > Hi > > > > Considering that this package is about to be removed from jessie I > > guess it should be removed from wheezy too. How is that done? Should I > > contact the FTP

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

On 08/11/17 20:19, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > Hi > > Considering that this package is about to be removed from jessie I > guess it should be removed from wheezy too. How is that done? Should I > contact the FTP maintainers about it, or do we simply ignore the > issue? We don't have point releases,

Bug#881097: To be removed from wheezy as well

Hi Considering that this package is about to be removed from jessie I guess it should be removed from wheezy too. How is that done? Should I contact the FTP maintainers about it, or do we simply ignore the issue? For people who wonder what we are discussing it is about CVE-2008-7319 Best