Hi!
I am a Debian Maintainer, working on a single package, rkward[1]. Some three
weeks ago I posted to this list[2], asking for help adjusting my upload
permissions to the new management interface[3] (for details on what I need,
and why, refer to [2]).
The only response that I got was one new
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package sipvicious
* Package name: sipvicious
Version : 0.2.7-1
Upstream Author : Sandro Gauci san...@enablesecurity.com
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/sipvicious/
* License : GPL-2.0+
Section
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package raphael. I upgraded it to the
latest upstream release (2.1.0) and I made it lintian clean.
To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:
Hi,
If a debian package uses flex to generate some of its source code for
a shared library, lintian would report
shlib-calls-exit
( http://lintian.debian.org/tags/shlib-calls-exit.html )
because of the exit() call in the flex-generated function yy_fatal_error:
static void yy_fatal_error
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Erik Sjölund wrote:
How should I handle this?
I would ignore it if you don't call the yy_fatal_error function.
Perhaps flex could be modified to handle this stuff better but I don't
know enough to say how.
Maybe with an lintian override?
Overrides are
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 09:47:49PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Overrides are discouraged for experimental/info level tags. Perhaps
lintian could be modified to ignore this when the exit() occurs inside
yy_fatal_error(), not sure how it detects this though.
By checking the symbol table, obviously,
hello, i've prepared an updated version of slapd package which fix
the bug #665199
debdiff output
$ debdiff slapd_2.4.31-1.1_i386.deb
/var/cache/apt/archives/slapd_2.4.31-1_i386.deb
[The following lists of changes regard files as different if they have
different names, permissions or
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Erik Sjölund wrote:
How should I handle this?
I would ignore it if you don't call the yy_fatal_error function.
It is not being called outside of the flex generated file. But in the
flex generated
Hello:
On 31/10/12 14:36, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
package sponsorship-requests
user sponsorship-reque...@packages.debian.org
usertags 686070 - not-fit-for-wheezy
thanks
I'm removing the not-fit-for-wheezy tag since Thomas claims to have
improved
Yes for wheezy and asap due to security problem that could lead to dos
Le 31 oct. 2012 15:09, Thibaut Paumard thib...@debian.org a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
package sponsorship-requests
user sponsorship-reque...@packages.debian.org
usertags 691780 for-wheezy
Hi Jerome,
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:33:06PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
On 31/10/12 14:36, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
package sponsorship-requests
user sponsorship-reque...@packages.debian.org
usertags 686070 - not-fit-for-wheezy
thanks
I'm removing the not-fit-for-wheezy tag since Thomas
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
* CVE-2012-4527: stack-based buffer overflow by encryption / decryption
of
overly long file names (Closes: #690924)
I've reviewed this and it looks mostly good. However, can you explain
why you chose ERRWIDTH=PATH_MAX+1024
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Erik Sjölund wrote:
Maybe with an lintian override?
Overrides are discouraged for experimental/info level tags. Perhaps
lintian could be modified to ignore this when the exit() occurs inside
yy_fatal_error(), not sure how it
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
I'm removing the not-fit-for-wheezy tag since Thomas claims to have
improved on that matter.
It still have the tag `not-fit-for-wheezy'.
This is more evidence that this tag doesn't actually provide anything useful.
This package was
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:25:22AM +0100, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
Hi!
Hello Thomas,
I am a Debian Maintainer, working on a single package, rkward[1]. Some
three
weeks ago I posted to this list[2], asking for help adjusting my upload
permissions to the new management interface[3]
On Friday 02 November 2012 17:58:08 you wrote:
(...)
Again, determining the right solution would be best to discuss on
the redhat bug or preferably with upstream.
Ok. I did post that on redhat bugzilla.
upstream did not publish anything for years...
Until those things happen, I am going to
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
I don't see the point to upload a version of just that to mentors.
Just use:
patch -p 1 80-width patch
, update the changelog and you're done with the NMU.
It gives you a chance to be the one contributing to the release. I'm
Your message dated Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:13:40 -0400
with message-id
CANTw=mnrk9dmhv1y5mvf9+enxy5tbzeybakrssjqsjwc_hh...@mail.gmail.com
and subject line Re: Bug#692065: RFS: mcrypt/2.6.8-1.3 [RC][NMU]
has caused the Debian Bug report #692065,
regarding RFS: mcrypt/2.6.8-1.3 [RC][NMU]
to be marked as
Hi Bart,
On Friday 02 November 2012, Bart Martens wrote:
The only response that I got was one new issue report[4] my package. I
have since fixed the issue in unstable, and contacted the reporter, who
- in my reading - seemed to imply that he would be willing to update my
upload
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org [121102 19:29]:
I'm starting to think that we should drop this tag entirely. There are a
lot of legitimate reasons why shared libraries call exit(), plus there are
legitimate reasons why shared library source includes a call to exit()
that isn't reachable
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org writes:
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org [121102 19:29]:
I'm starting to think that we should drop this tag entirely. There are
a lot of legitimate reasons why shared libraries call exit(), plus
there are legitimate reasons why shared library source includes
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your prompt review.
It seems I wasn't fully aware of the Freeze Policy. I was under a wrong
assumtion that I could make the package's state better during the freeze.
I've spoken with Salvatore who proposed an NMU for only the RC bug. I
hope he can find the time to upload his
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Kai Storbeck wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your prompt review.
It seems I wasn't fully aware of the Freeze Policy. I was under a wrong
assumtion that I could make the package's state better during the freeze.
I've spoken with Salvatore who proposed an NMU for
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM, gustavo panizzo wrote:
hello, i've prepared an updated version of slapd package which fix
the bug #665199
Hi, I've just reviewed this, and it looks reasonable. However, the
changelog note is not really descriptive enough:
* Fix a bug while upgrading from
Your message dated Fri, 2 Nov 2012 22:53:31 -0400
with message-id 20121103025331.GB8544@leliel
and subject line uploaded
has caused the Debian Bug report #690245,
regarding RFS: zgv/5.9-6 [QA] -- SVGAlib graphics viewer
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
25 matches
Mail list logo
