Re: Provide libijs packages as a binary package of Ghostscript?

2011-01-26 Thread Till Kamppeter
On 01/25/2011 08:27 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: Another argument for keeping libijs separate: I consider packaging GNU Ghostscript, which seem to have a slightly different development pace and thus might be interesting e.g. for security concerned users, and would also make the recent RC issue

Re: Provide libijs packages as a binary package of Ghostscript?

2011-01-26 Thread Till Kamppeter
On 01/25/2011 09:48 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: Just for the record, I think there should be *one* copy of ijs only. I really don't care whether it's in ijs or gs. However, given that gs is required for ijs to work, and the copy in gs has had some maintenance, I think the gs copy would be the better

Processed: limit source to hplip, tagging 610960

2011-01-26 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: #hplip (3.11.1-1) experimental; urgency=low # # * New Upstream Release #- Fixes CVE-2010-4267: Buffer overflow (Closes: #610960) # limit source hplip Limiting to bugs with field 'source' containing at least one of 'hplip' Limit currently

Re: Provide libijs packages as a binary package of Ghostscript?

2011-01-26 Thread Till Kamppeter
On 01/25/2011 10:04 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I think perhaps you miss my point: If libijs is maintained for Debian as part of the GPL Ghostscript project, and we also (in the future) maintain GNU Ghostscript, then GNU Ghostscript will need to depend on GPL Ghostscript, making it impossible

Re: Provide libijs packages as a binary package of Ghostscript?

2011-01-26 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:58:12PM +0100, Till Kamppeter wrote: On 01/25/2011 10:04 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I think perhaps you miss my point: If libijs is maintained for Debian as part of the GPL Ghostscript project, and we also (in the future) maintain GNU Ghostscript, then GNU

Re: Bug#610948: unblock: ghostscript/8.71~dfsg2-8

2011-01-26 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:13:21PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: I'd like it. apt's heuristics are kind of goofy, and if I understand correctly then removing Breaks removes a small chance of apt getting confused and deciding to remove ghostscript as part of an

Bug#440478: gs-esp: hangs at ~98% CPU with DEVICE=bbox reading a .ps from tiff2ps

2011-01-26 Thread Jonathan Nieder
found 440478 ghostscript/8.62.dfsg.1-3.2lenny5 quit paolo wrote: 2011/1/23 Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com: Do you know of a ghostscript version that did not have this problem? (That could make life very easy.) nope, all gs I've installed so far (but am still on Lenny as most updated

Processed: Re: gs-esp: hangs at ~98% CPU with DEVICE=bbox reading a .ps from tiff2ps

2011-01-26 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: found 440478 ghostscript/8.62.dfsg.1-3.2lenny5 Bug #440478 [ghostscript] gs-esp: hangs at ~98% CPU with DEVICE=bbox reading a .ps from tiff2ps Bug Marked as found in versions ghostscript/8.62.dfsg.1-3.2lenny5. quit Stopping processing here.

Bug#610960: marked as done (CVE-2010-4267: Buffer overflow)

2011-01-26 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:17:20 + with message-id e1pify8-0007iw...@franck.debian.org and subject line Bug#610960: fixed in hplip 3.11.1-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #610960, regarding CVE-2010-4267: Buffer overflow to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Accepted hplip 3.11.1-1 (source all amd64)

2011-01-26 Thread Mark Purcell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:26:43 +1100 Source: hplip Binary: hplip hplip-data hplip-gui hplip-dbg hplip-doc hpijs-ppds hpijs hplip-cups libhpmud0 libhpmud-dev libsane-hpaio Architecture: source all amd64 Version: 3.11.1-1 Distribution: