On 12/12/2012 01:37 AM, intrigeri wrote:
Hi,
Yann Leboulanger wrote (14 Oct 2012 16:35:07 GMT) :
On 10/14/2012 06:18 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
FWIW, it _is_ packaged as python-gnupg.
right, but we have a small change in it for logging:
logger = logging.getLogger('gajim.c.gnupg')
Looks like
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On 2012-12-08 12:25, Jan Dittberner wrote:
retitle 689588 unblock: cracklib2/2.8.19-2
thanks
Dear release managers,
please unblock cracklib2/2.8.19-2 that I uploaded to unstable. See the
debdiff that is already attached to the bug. The change is minimal and
Processing control commands:
tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #689588 [release.debian.org] unblock: cracklib2/2.8.19-2
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
689588: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=689588
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On 2012-12-12 09:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On 2012-12-08 12:25, Jan Dittberner wrote:
retitle 689588 unblock: cracklib2/2.8.19-2
thanks
Dear release managers,
please unblock cracklib2/2.8.19-2 that I uploaded to unstable. See the
debdiff that is already attached
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package ferm
Hi,
I fixed two nasty bugs (I think at least #694334 is RC) in 2.1-4.
#694334: ferm: modifies files under /etc:
if an admin decided to have different
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:18:18 +0100
Nick Andrik nick.and...@gmail.com wrote:
First of all I also CC the DD that follows my work on packaging the
new version, since I am not an expert on all debian procedures yet.
About removing kismet or not, I don't know what are the arguments for
and
Your message dated Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:39:35 +0100
with message-id 50c850d7.70...@thykier.net
and subject line Re: Bug#695355: unblock: libwmf/0.2.8.4-10.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #695355,
regarding unblock: libwmf/0.2.8.4-10.2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Dear release managers,
today, I chose to fix RC bug #694998. It is a security issue with
MediaWiki 1.19.2 currently in testing, and there are two ways of fixing
this issue. The easiest would be to get the new upstream version 1.19.3
into
On 2012-12-12 10:58, Dominik George wrote:
Dear release managers,
today, I chose to fix RC bug #694998. It is a security issue with
MediaWiki 1.19.2 currently in testing, and there are two ways of fixing
this issue. The easiest would be to get the new upstream version 1.19.3
into
Hi,
Dmitry Smirnov wrote (12 Dec 2012 01:16:15 GMT) :
There were no reply from maintainer in #688574 so perhaps it would
be better to set Daniel as owner of this bug...
Please do it if you feel it's useful.
A full new upstream version was uploaded to unstable since
then, so an update in
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2012-12-12 10:58, Dominik George wrote:
Dear release managers,
today, I chose to fix RC bug #694998. It is a security issue with
To be exact, I asked Dominik whether he can have a look at it
and review it (and ask the Release Team) because I
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 662513 - moreinfo
Bug #662513 [release.debian.org] RM: emboss/6.3.1-6
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
662513: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=662513
Hi,
Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 07:57:30 GMT) :
On 12/12/2012 01:37 AM, intrigeri wrote:
Looks like this should be added to the embedded code copies list,
regardless of the minor diff:
https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies
This can also be in Gajim itself, and I'll do that for
Hi,
Neil Williams wrote (12 Dec 2012 09:16:52 GMT) :
One should pass through the new queue, the
other through experimental.
No. A package which has been removed will always go back through NEW if
it is reintroduced. After going through the NEW queue, it can go into
either experimental or
On 2012-12-12 10:33, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Niels Thykier wrote:
If 1.19.3 is just the security fix + translations, I'd be willing to
allow the translations as well.
OK, thanks. Let’s hope it’ll be just fixes.
In general we have been able to trust upstream security
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Can you provide us with a filtered debfiff of the 1.19.3? Just
remember to let us know what filtering you used (e.g. filterdiff -x
'*/messages/Messages*.php' ).
find attached the filtered diff. It was created using:
filterdiff \
-x
On 2012-12-12 11:39, Dominik George wrote:
Hi,
Can you provide us with a filtered debfiff of the 1.19.3? Just
remember to let us know what filtering you used (e.g. filterdiff -x
'*/messages/Messages*.php' ).
find attached the filtered diff. It was created using:
filterdiff \
-x
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
Hi,
I'm requesting removal of vserver-debiantools from Wheezy.
Background is at #693275.
Maintainer's approval is in message #22 there.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @
Niels,
On 12/12/2012 09:04 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
In regards to the actual changes, I suspect they are flawed in the
error-path, see cracklib2.review.
Doh! You are absolutely right. Nice catch, thanks.
I can confirm that I (still) get the correct error message with your
suggested changes
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
block 693275 with 695755
Bug #693275 [release.debian.org] RM: util-vserver/0.30.216-pre2864-2.1
693275 was not blocked by any bugs.
693275 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 693275: 695755
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
retitle 695755 RM: vserver-debiantools/0.8.1
Bug #695755 [release.debian.org] release.debian.org: RM:
vserver-debiantools/0.8.1
Changed Bug title to 'RM: vserver-debiantools/0.8.1' from 'release.debian.org:
RM: vserver-debiantools/0.8.1'
thanks
Ola Lundqvist wrote (12 Dec 2012 05:35:25 GMT) :
Please remove vserver-debiantools as well.
Requested in #695755, thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package ample
The new version moves the pidfile to /var/run/ample.pid and drops
privileges in ample itself (instead of via start-stop-daemon), both to
fix #689769)
Debdiff
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:55:14AM +0100, Markus Wanner wrote:
Niels,
On 12/12/2012 09:04 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
In regards to the actual changes, I suspect they are flawed in the
error-path, see cracklib2.review.
Doh! You are absolutely right. Nice catch, thanks.
I can confirm
Hi,
intrigeri wrote (14 Nov 2012 23:58:44 GMT) :
Simon Kelley wrote (12 Nov 2012 21:05:35 GMT) :
I'd strongly suggest moving to 2.63-4, rather than backporting.
The changes for the security fix are not trivial, and probablity of
introducing a bug backporting is much larger that the probablity
If 1.19.3 is just the security fix + translations, I'd be willing to
allow the translations as well.
OK, thanks. Let’s hope it’ll be just fixes.
Thanks Dominik for having a look.
From the changelog of 1.19.3:
+=== Changes since 1.19.2 ===
+* (bug 40995) Prevent session fixation in
Your message dated Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:19:53 +0100
with message-id 50c86859.9080...@thykier.net
and subject line Re: Bug#693275: RM: util-vserver/0.30.216-pre2864-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #693275,
regarding RM: util-vserver/0.30.216-pre2864-2.1
to be marked as done.
This means that
Your message dated Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:18:06 +0100
with message-id 50c867ee.5020...@thykier.net
and subject line Re: Bug#695755: release.debian.org: RM:
vserver-debiantools/0.8.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #695755,
regarding RM: vserver-debiantools/0.8.1
to be marked as done.
This means
Your message dated Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:22:08 +0100
with message-id 50c868e0.6030...@thykier.net
and subject line Re: Bug#695756: unblock: ample/0.5.7-7
has caused the Debian Bug report #695756,
regarding unblock: ample/0.5.7-7
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
On 12/12/2012 11:40, intrigeri wrote:
Hi,
Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 07:57:30 GMT) :
On 12/12/2012 01:37 AM, intrigeri wrote:
Looks like this should be added to the embedded code copies list,
regardless of the minor diff:
https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies
This can also be
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
x-debbugs-cc: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
please unblock debian-edu/1.702 and debian-edu-config/1.702 even though the
changes don't match the release policy, however, in previous
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Niels Thykier wrote:
The filtered diff looks reasonable, feel free to upload 1.19.3-0.1 to
unstable. Please file an unblock bug for it after it has been in
unstable for some time.
Thanks Niels.
Dominik, please commit the changes needed, version as 1:1.19.3-1
and mark as
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package packagekit
The new PackageKit revision contains very important fixes for the PK Aptcc
backend.
The bugs found lead to wrong behaviour of the Aptcc backend, e.g.
Hi!
Since there was an RC bug reported against version 2.0.0-3 (some missing
Replaces/Breaks), allowing this version back in to testing again would
not be a good idea. I created a 2.0.0-3+wheezy1 version with the same
fix that is in 2.0.0-5 and uploaded it to testing-proposed-updates.
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception
unblock globus-common/14.7-2
globus-common 14.7-2 implements a fix for an RC bug (#694392) that also
affects the current version in testing (14.6-1).
The changes between the 14.6
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Dear release team,
Please unblock mlterm 3.1.2-1.3. It fixes a piuparts upgrade test failure (bugs
#688603, #688604, #688605, #688606, #694153).
The previous fix (in -1.2) creates new
Your message dated Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:13:04 +0100
with message-id 50c890f0.6080...@thykier.net
and subject line Re: Bug#695768: unblock globus-common/14.7-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #695768,
regarding unblock globus-common/14.7-2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo
Hi,
Christoph Martin wrote (11 Dec 2012 15:00:45 GMT) :
Please unblock package apt-show-versions
it contains debconf translations and updates, fixes a bug in parallel
build mode and completes the list of official suites in Debian.
Sorry, I don't get how this
Processing control commands:
tag -1 + moreinfo
Bug #695673 [release.debian.org] unblock: apt-show-versions/0.20
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
695673: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=695673
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
No. A package which has been removed will always go back through NEW if
it is reintroduced. After going through the NEW queue, it can go into
either experimental or unstable.
Since the discussion has drifted to full removal from the archive,
I'd like to point out that a removal from testing
Processing control commands:
tag -1 + moreinfo
Bug #695637 [release.debian.org] unblock: synaptic/0.75.13
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
695637: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=695637
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo
Hi,
Bob Bib wrote (11 Dec 2012 00:52:28 GMT) :
Please unblock package synaptic.
Quick changelog:
* debian/synaptic.menu:
- use x-terminal-emulator -e synaptic-pkexec to support systems
that do not have a GUI policykit agent running (closes:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
# the requested patch for tpu was provided
tags 689973 - moreinfo
Bug #689973 [release.debian.org] unblock: mimedefang/2.73-2
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
retitle 689973 unblock: mimedefang/2.71-3 (TPU pre-approval)
Bug #689973 [release.debian.org]
Hi,
Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 11:50:25 GMT) :
Ok then we wait for an answer from secure-testing-team?
I think so.
I don't think I need to do somthing, do I?
I think you don't, now that I added them to the loop myself.
Which means we can now get back to why this update of an
Hi,
Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 14:32:35 GMT) :
I don't have strong feelings in any case, I don't expect someone to be
using this version of the package nowadays.
On the other hand, I don't also see the clear benefits from removing it.
OK. I think the key question then becomes: as the
2012/12/12 intrigeri intrig...@debian.org:
Hi,
Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 14:32:35 GMT) :
I don't have strong feelings in any case, I don't expect someone to be
using this version of the package nowadays.
On the other hand, I don't also see the clear benefits from removing it.
OK. I
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:44:43PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 18:21:25 +0100, Ivo De Decker wrote:
diff -Nru lftp-4.3.6/debian/patches/lftp_sys-stdint-kfreebsd.patch
lftp-4.3.6/debian/patches/lftp_sys-stdint-kfreebsd.patch
---
On 12.12.2012 14:25, intrigeri wrote:
Also, any pointer to the place where I can learn about the
testing-updates suite?
Nowhere. :-)
I did at least implicitly suggest in an earlier discussion that it not
be included:
quote
I don't expect testing-updates to ever be used, at least under that
On 12/12/2012 03:41 PM, intrigeri wrote:
Hi,
Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 11:50:25 GMT) :
Ok then we wait for an answer from secure-testing-team?
I think so.
I don't think I need to do somthing, do I?
I think you don't, now that I added them to the loop myself.
Which means we can
Hi,
Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 15:18:54 GMT) :
2012/12/12 intrigeri intrig...@debian.org:
OK. I think the key question then becomes: as the upcoming maintainer
of kismet in Debian, do you want to commit to maintain 2008-05-R1-4.3
in stable once Wheezy is released? (as in: dealing with
If you mean feature requests, then they are not appropriate for
packages shipped in a stable release, so indeed it does not make
sense, and then I gather your answer was a yes.
Then, yes it is :)
If you mean anything else, please clarify :)
If we need to fix anything then I will have to
Processing control commands:
tag -1 - moreinfo
Bug #693351 [release.debian.org] RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
--
693351: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693351
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
Hi,
Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 17:07:14 GMT) :
Then, yes it is :)
OK, thanks for the clarification.
So, I think this removal request should be closed.
As of curiosity, even if I push anything to unstable it will not move
to testing because of the freeze
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:30:14 +0100, intrigeri wrote:
Hi,
Julien Cristau wrote (01 Dec 2012 12:59:46 GMT) :
tags 688966 + moreinfo
FWIW, it's unclear to me what additional information is being
requested, so it might be unclear for the submitter too: he was asked
to provide a
Hi,
I made a systematic trackdown of open security issues in Wheezy and would like
to summarise some issues in this mail. Some security blocks might be lost in
the backlog, it would be nice if someone go through this list:
bacula / CVE-2012-4430
This was fixed in testing-proposed-updates in
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
close 683311
Bug #683311 [release.debian.org] unblock: htop/1.0.1-2
Marked Bug as done
quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
683311: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683311
Debian Bug
Processing control commands:
tags -1 + confirmed
Bug #691186 [release.debian.org] unblock: icecast2/2.3.2-9+deb7u2
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
691186: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=691186
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 20:53 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Ok to upload to t-p-u with the attached debdiff?
This fixes CVE-2011-4612 / #652663)
Much as I dislike wheel re-inventing, I'm assuming the patch matches how
upstream decided to resolve the issue;
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you about this.
On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 14:53 +0100, Emmanuel Bouthenot wrote:
I'd like to get your approval about the upload of weechat 0.3.8-2 to
testing-proposed-updates in order to fix 2 security issues:
0.3.8-1+deb7u1
Processing control commands:
tags -1 + confirmed
Bug #693702 [release.debian.org] tpu: weechat/0.3.8-2 (pre-approval)
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
693702: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693702
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 19:21 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
I made a systematic trackdown of open security issues in Wheezy and would like
to summarise some issues in this mail. Some security blocks might be lost in
the backlog, it would be nice if someone go through this list:
Thanks for the
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 08:57:59PM +0200, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
close 683311
quit
Hi all,
On 2012-12-12 01:12, intrigeri wrote:
[...]
Can I still please ask for unblock for -2 as a part of asking to
unblock -4?
Please fix the bugs that were pointed in review...
Ping?
Control: retitle -1 unblock: gjs/1.32.0-4
Le mardi 11 décembre 2012 à 23:04 +0100, Niels Thykier a écrit :
I’ll reupload with that additional patch.
http://git.gnome.org/browse/gjs/commit/?id=5c90e776ce3c
Please go ahead.
Done as 1.32.0-4 (it’s the only change).
Cheers,
--
.''`.
Processing control commands:
retitle -1 unblock: gjs/1.32.0-4
Bug #694452 [release.debian.org] unblock: gjs/1.32.0-3
Changed Bug title to 'unblock: gjs/1.32.0-4' from 'unblock: gjs/1.32.0-3'
--
694452: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694452
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact
Processing control commands:
tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #695174 [release.debian.org] t-p-u pre-approval owncloud/4.0.4debian2-3.1
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
695174: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=695174
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 20:14 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 22:18:54 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:55:56AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
As far as I can tell this escapeHTML function is not defined in the
current
Dear Moritz,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:21:47PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
gimp / CVE-2012-5576
Blocked by missing s390x build. I've contacted the buildd maints, but got
no reponse.
I beg to differ:
pkern@grieg /org/buildd.debian.org/mbox (git)-[master] % grep 'gimp' s390*
1
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 19:44:38 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 20:14 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 22:18:54 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 10:55:56AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
As far
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 19:32 +, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
cflow (1:1.4+dfsg1-1) unstable; urgency=high
.
* Repackage with non DFSG-free texinfo files stripped out of the source and
binary package (closes: #695715).
Thanks for fixing this. Unfortunately, the fact that you also
Processing control commands:
tags -1 - moreinfo
Bug #695471 [release.debian.org] unblock: bootchart2/0.14.4-2
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
--
695471: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=695471
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:10:43 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2012-12-08 at 19:47 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
I just uploaded bootchart2/0.14.4-2 to unstable. This upload fixes RC bug
#694403 -- the package shipped a systemd unit, but no classic initscript.
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Please unblock package moodle
I am about to get new version of the package uploaded to
testing-proposed-updates. The new version fixes a security issue that is
forwarded but not yet
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 08:22:30PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 19:32 +, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
cflow (1:1.4+dfsg1-1) unstable; urgency=high
.
* Repackage with non DFSG-free texinfo files stripped out of the source
and
binary package (closes:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
Hi,
please remove balazar from wheezy. It is a game and the RC bug #692753 was not
fixed for a month now. There is also the important bug #630946 that causes
the game to crash unless sound is
Your message dated Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:53:38 +
with message-id 1355345618.13966.29.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
and subject line Re: Bug#695471: unblock: bootchart2/0.14.4-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #695471,
regarding unblock: bootchart2/0.14.4-2
to be marked as done.
This
Your message dated Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:58:37 +
with message-id 1355345917.13966.30.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
and subject line Re: Bug#695806: RM: balazar/0.3.4.ds1-6.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #695806,
regarding RM: balazar/0.3.4.ds1-6.1
to be marked as done.
This means
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
Hi,
please remove gnat-4.4 from wheezy. It FTBFS (RC bug #669513) and since the
only feasible way to fix this is updating to the new upstream version,
Ludovic Brenta, one of its maintainers,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 09:26:01AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
On 2012-12-12 09:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On 2012-12-08 12:25, Jan Dittberner wrote:
please unblock cracklib2/2.8.19-2 that I uploaded to unstable. See the
debdiff that is already attached to the
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:30:14 intrigeri wrote:
Dmitry Smirnov wrote (12 Dec 2012 01:16:15 GMT) :
There were no reply from maintainer in #688574 so perhaps it would
be better to set Daniel as owner of this bug...
Please do it if you feel it's useful.
Waht would you do?
A full new
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:18:54, Nick Andrik wrote:
2012/12/12 intrigeri intrig...@debian.org:
Hi,
Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 14:32:35 GMT) :
I don't have strong feelings in any case, I don't expect someone to be
using this version of the package nowadays.
On the other
If there are any bugs reported on functionality (which I doubt) then
it makes no sense trying to fix the 2008 version.
Ubuntu has several SIGSEGV crashes reported on kismet 2008-05-R1-4.3:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kismet/+bugs
I think that the ubuntu situation is orthogonal to
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 18:50:45, Nick Andrik wrote:
If there are any bugs reported on functionality (which I doubt) then
it makes no sense trying to fix the 2008 version.
Ubuntu has several SIGSEGV crashes reported on kismet 2008-05-R1-4.3:
I think that the ubuntu situation is orthogonal to the debian one.
Since ubuntu takes its packages from unstable, whether or not we
remove the package from stable is irrelevant.
The bugs for the kismet package in Ubuntu are irrelevant IFF the package in
Wheezy doesn't have these SIGSEGV
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
On Sun, 2012-12-09 at 17:03 -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
And when I submit 2.0.5 here, should I include the debdiff against
2.0.4, or the full debdiff against what's currently in wheezy (i.e
including the 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 diffs)?
We'd like at
84 matches
Mail list logo
