Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
Hi!
Am 09.06.2011 00:09, schrieb Philipp Kern:
the second Squeeze point release (6.0.2) is now scheduled for
Saturday, June 25th.
Bad timing; Meike and I will not be available on that weekend.
Joey, are you available?
Yep. I'm available that
Michael Tautschnig wrote:
In the clamav packaging team we had recurring discussion about how to deal
with
clamav in the near (== lenny) and more distant (= squeeze) future. The
current
situation is as follows:
- We've got severly outdated clamav packages in etch(-security).
- A few
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Martin Schulze said:
Michael Tautschnig wrote:
In the clamav packaging team we had recurring discussion about how to
deal with
clamav in the near (== lenny) and more distant (= squeeze) future. The
current
situation is as follows
Rob Browning wrote:
I've uploaded emacs22 22.2+2-5 unstable which contains two bug fixes
that I believe should be considered for Lenny. Please let me know if
you would like me to do anything further.
*sigh*
Still no updated version of tramp included, so the current version in
Debian still
dann frazier wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 02:29:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
I'm wondering who wrote:
As linux-modules-extra-2.6-etchnhalf was not ready in time we decided to
skip it for r4 and include it in r5.
Frans Pop wrote:
Well done folks. You've again managed to break
Philipp Kern wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 08:39:03AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Dear security team, you broke lighttpd badly with your last upload,
because you use a broken patch to fix the last CVE on it. Please update
the patch, using e.g. the one in the unstable version instead.
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi,
Considering that there is already an update pending for etch r2, and
that CVE-2007-3847 is of similar severity as the issues fixed in
2.2.3-4+etch2, I think it makes sense to upload +etch3 to s-p-u, too.
Martin Schulze agreed to this.
Security team
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2007-06-17 19:48:10, schrieb Pierre Habouzit:
Then you have to stay with sarge. too bad.
I think, you do not understand the problem IF someone is using the Stock
Debian Kernel she/he can not upgrade to Etchm since ALL Etch-Kernels
have SMP compiled in.
It
Fathi Boudra wrote:
desktop-base for etchr1 was rejected. BTW, this is just a call to SRM team to
know if Martin is alone to think desktop-base must be rejected ?
Come on people! Can't you accept a decision others have to make?
Regards,
Joey
--
Every use of Linux is a proper use
Holger Levsen wrote:
Holger (who's also a stable ion3 user. Or rather, have been.)
Isn't that an oxymoron qua author?
Regards,
Joey
--
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:55:41PM +0100, Giuseppe Sacco wrote:
Hi all,
hylafax 4.3.2 has just been released[1]. This is a minor update but
fixes a few bug forwarded upstream and simplify the way Debian package
may be done. The more important fix is that PAM will
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 11:50 +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Please keep in mind that the upgrade path from etch to lenny needs
to work for etch r0 to lenny r0 as well.
So I've understood, but cannot back this up with any documentation.
Where is this documented? I'm
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
It has just come to my attention that there will be no upgrade path
from the version of Mailman in etch at this time (2.1.9) to the
version lenny will most probably have (2.2.x), but there will be an
upgrade path from the yet-unreleased 2.1.y, y9, to 2.2.x, and an
Loïc Minier wrote:
I mistakingly uploaded gnome-vfs2 2.16 to unstable; it bumps shlibs and
is incompatible with unstable's bonobo; it's not suitable for etch.
First, sorry for this mistake.
Second, here are the options:
- upload bonobo 2.16 into unstable and upload updates via TPU
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
So the release criteria require buildd redundancy. And yet, half the
release candidate archs still don't have it. It gets marked in yellow
on http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html.
Well, the one-and-only alpha buildd has been down for apparently ten
I upgraded a machine from sarge to etch and the process broke over ssh :(
Here's the log:
Preconfiguring packages ...
(Reading database ... 100606 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking openssh-client (from .../openssh-client_1%3a4.3p2-7_i386.deb) ...
Transferring ownership of
Noah Meyerhans wrote:
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 06:11:28PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
I upgraded a machine from sarge to etch and the process broke over ssh :(
I believe this was fixed by 1:4.3p2-8, which should be allowed to enter
etch ASAP.
Cool! Good to know that this problem
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 28 décembre 2006 à 17:29 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit :
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 01:56 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Now, if you don't provide us with the necessary data, we won't be able
to fix the regression it introduces in gnucash.
There are
Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
there are two issues where I would like to ask you to comment on:
- mantis: We have two requests to allow it in. Is this ok from your
side? (No bug id, sorry - in case that not, could you please open an
RC bug on mantis?)
Why should the Security Team oppose a
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:12:31PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
there are two issues where I would like to ask you to comment on:
- mantis: We have two requests to allow it in. Is this ok from your
side? (No bug id, sorry
Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 16 November 2006 01:02, peter green wrote:
3: the restructuring of the ssh packages probablly deserves a mention in
the upgrading section, if i'm not mistaken then upgrading a system with
ssh installed but sshd disabled is likely to result in sshd enabled
Andreas Barth wrote:
we have two bug reports against the release notes which should be
discussed here:
#390441: release-notes: Document unclear Mozilla security situation
Mozilla and friends will be supported as long as their package
maintainer are able to backport patches from upstream.
Mattia Dongili wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 08:06:38AM +0100, Joey Schulze wrote:
[...]
*sigh* That would've been the best solution.
I'd say this is ok, however, please watch security updates as the security
team will probably forget to update apache2-mpm-itk when apache2 has been
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I think the best way forward at this point in time is to create our own
release, as you suggest, very much like what amd64 did for sarge. On the
August 16 birthday party in Breda, I discussed this with Jeroen Van
Wolffelaar who told me that in theory, it should not be
Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 18 September 2006 09:18, Frans Pop wrote:
* Installation Guide
Add note in the introduction that m68k is not officially supported.
Otherwise the same as d-i: continue building and uploading into
unstable. I'd suggest to just keep the development version
Matthijs Mohlmann wrote:
Hi,
What about #375494 and #377047, those are security bugs in the current
stable distribution (Sarge) and according to the Security Team it didn't
warrant an upload. Although it has a CVE so I think it's worth an upload
to stable.
The first one doesn't look like a
Holger Levsen wrote:
On Saturday 16 September 2006 08:50, Martin Schulze wrote:
The first one doesn't look like a real security problem.
Please explain why you think that putting arbitrary long strings into fixed
sized buffers is not a security problem, preferedly in the bugreport.
Please
Alexander Schmehl wrote:
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060908 01:46]:
1) sarge:
1.1) apt-get dist-upgrade - upgrading to etch
[..]
Yes, I can see that apt Recommends: debian-archive-keyring and Suggests:
gnupg. Given that apt should be doing secure archives by default now, the
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
- Time based release:
We spoke about the idea of a time based release for r4. Anthony and
Julien
think it is a too short time frame, but we should try this experiment,
and
the speak with cd-vendors after r4, so we get better impression. Release
Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
Joey asked me to forward this to here, so here it is:
When upgrading sarge to etch, apt-get complains about untrusted source of
packages because gnupg isn't installed during apt-get dist-upgrade.
After manually installing gnupg apt-get update everything seems
Andreas Barth wrote:
Hi,
I try to summarize the results of the discussion from start of August,
in hope that we can finish this off, and test-run this first for the
next stable point release. From the security team, some input on their
preference would be welcome.
The idea is to have
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
let a be an architecture in sarge. Then one of the following holds for
mailman in sarge r3:
- it is affected by a security problem.
- it has a severity critical bug.
Mailman in sid:
- may or may not suffer of a security problem
A security problem in
Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 07:44:27AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
These bugs are at least to be investigated and maybe resolved in a
rather pragmatic way:
- packages that FTBFS
. on which architecture?
As long as it's a release architecture, does this matter? Doesn't
Steve Langasek wrote:
Another transition that today is in an earlier stage is the
mozilla-xulrunner transition. I've asked on #debian-release what people
thought should be done if seamonkey isn't packaged in time for etch --
should mozilla and all its reverse-deps be dropped because it's not
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Second, is it planned to include the next round of security updates to
the Mozilla family by Alexander Sack? (cf. [0] [1]) For some reason
these don't seem to have gone into security.d.o yet and it would be very
nice to ship mozilla* packages that are up-to-date with
Stephen Frazier wrote:
I installed ETCH from Aug 21 businesscard iso. My preseed file selects
tasks standard, kde-desktop.
When I tried to open a floppy disk with Konqueror it issued a message
saying that HAL was needed. I installed HAL using aptitude and after
rebooting Konqueror was
+++ freetype-2.1.7/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,19 @@
+freetype (2.1.7-3.1) stable-security; urgency=high
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload by the Security Team
+ * Rebuilt with higher version number
+
+ -- Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:06:28 +0200
+
+freetype (2.1.7-2.6) stable
Last week I started a discussion[1] to find out the current status of key
management in Secure APT which is a release goal for etch and said to
be included in the next release of Debian. I don't find the situation
terribly promising, though, but here's a summary, so we may come to a
solution some
Marc Haber wrote:
(2) Update exim3 with the warning message in sarge via s-p-u and a
point release.
If this is a required step upon the upgrade/removal, then your path
is flawed. You cannot expect all users who upgrade from sarge to
etch to have the most recent updates installed. There
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I'd really love to see this feature properly implemented.
The only approach which is known to work is static keys for stable
releases and stable security updates. The keys can be stored off-line
or on-line, at the discretion of the respective teams.
So far,
According to the last release update the key management issue for
Secure APT is not yet resolved.
Are there chances to get key management settled down before the
release? It would really be a shame if we couldn't get this done and
provide the user with a proper infrastructure.
This requires
Moin!
Andreas Barth wrote:
just two things:
First, I think the release team has the right to send out texts to
debian-news on his own. Why didn't you approve our mail? I'm considering
to ask the mailing list admins to give us direct permissions to post to
that list.
I don't think so. I
Christian Perrier wrote:
As a consequence, I hereby ask the security team to DROP the processing
of the 4.0.3-31sarge6 version you have.
As you wish, packages deleted.
Regards,
Joey
--
Testing? What's that? If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up, it is perfect.
Please always Cc
martin f krafft wrote:
I tend to agree with Joey on the issue, though I do think it's not
very nice that the postgresql security upgrade breaks other
packages. But going via stable-proposed-updates seems like the right
path.
Have you talked to the stable release team? Maybe they'd be
Moin!
DSA 1087 introduced a stricter parsing of specially encoded data
streams in postgresql. Martin Pitt pointed out that psycopg and
python-pgsql still use \' for '-encoding instead of '' which is the
only accepted encoding after installing this security upeate.
Hence, both package should
Andreas Barth wrote:
the target group for our release updates are our developers.
However, we have seen in the past more than once journalists picking up
the release update and writing articles about them. Not only once there
have been slightly suboptimal stories, e.g. with overemphasizing
Martin Schulze wrote:
DSA 1087 introduced a stricter parsing of specially encoded data
streams in postgresql. Martin Pitt pointed out that psycopg and
python-pgsql still use \' for '-encoding instead of '' which is the
only accepted encoding after installing this security upeate.
Hence
Andreas Barth wrote:
The main problem is going to be testing the new images as it will not be
possible to run an installation and download kernel udebs from s-p-u and
other udebs from stable.
The question is however: should we try to keep the old udebs in stable
also? Are they not
Sven Luther wrote:
I have seen Frans claim various times about patches and changes i was
proposing that it will never be applied anyway because i proposed it, and he
didn't thrust me. Do you really thing that in the light of this me sending in
patches just to have them rote in the BTS is
Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 05:04:53PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
waldi why not add your patch to update-grub to the next stable release?
Please keep in mind that you can't rely on a current sarge installation
when it is upgraded to etch, in other words, you can't depend
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
When trying to upgrade to the latest libapache2-request-perl
(2.04-dev-1sarge2)
I've got a broken dep on perl = 5.8.4-8sarge4, but perl 5.8.4-8sarge3 only
is available.
Following Joey's piece of advice, I'm contacting you on that matter. He
remarked that
?? wrote:
I wanna debian history
if exist summarize debian history infomation
ttp://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/
http://cvs.infodrom.org/calendar/calendar.infodrom.debian
Regards,
Joey
--
Every use of Linux is a proper use of Linux. -- Jon 'maddog' Hall
--
Jordi Pina Estany - Pinucset wrote:
Hi,
I'm here for asking if it's planned to enter Kaffeine in Debian unstable.
Is there somebody working in it?
Errm... Is anything wrong with the current packages?
kaffeinestable0.6-1 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel
powerpc
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi Moritz,
On Wednesday, 15 Mar 2006, you wrote:
Frans Pop wrote:
On Wednesday 15 March 2006 00:15, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
The update is built and tested, it'll appear soon. It contains three
ABI changing security fixes, so the ABI will be bumped. I
Dear Release managers and assistants,
what is the current status of the inclusion of a powerpc64 architecture?
Are there plans to include it in the archive?
If so, for when is the inclusion planned?
Or, what's the current status of the port as perceived by you.
Is the port official and
Mario Joußen wrote:
Hi,
I fixed the RC bug #349396 of affix-kernel with my last upload to
unstable. Since the package in Sarge is unusable also, I want to update
this package as well. Is this okay?
Please go ahead.
If it is okay, what is the correct distribution? stable or
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update
==
An up-to-date version is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.1r2/.
I am preparing the next revision of the current stable Debian
distribution (sarge) and will frequently send reports so
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi Joey,
there was some discussion[1] wether the next stable update could have some
timezone data updated in the glibc package.
Show me the changes.
Unless large chunks of the world are affected I don't consider timezone
details to warrant an update in our stable
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
would you entertain a one-line fix removing the deluser command from the
postrm of chipcard-tools (source package libchipcard).
I'm having trouble with this on #346527 (still need to figure out how to
fix this for users upgrading from original sarge) and think that this
their distribution.
Disclaimer
--
This list intends to help the ftp-masters releasing 3.1r2. They have the
final power to accept a package or not. If you want to comment on
this list, please send a mail to Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Last updated 2006/02/10 07:22 MET
--
Linux
. They have the
final power to accept a package or not. If you want to comment on
this list, please send a mail to Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Last updated 2006/02/06 09:43 MET
--
Reading is a lost art nowadays. -- Michael Weber
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Thomas Lange wrote:
Content-Description: message body text
Hi,
I uploaded fai (2.8.4sarge1) sarge-proposed-updates; urgency=low. This
contains fixes for three important bugs. Attached is the debdiff to
2.8.4, but most lines in it are just cvs/svn diffs since I moved from
CVS to svn.
Most
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
It's been a while since the last update: how long to go before r1?
Dunno.
Ryan (ftpmaster) won't give a green light for r1 until the kernel
has been updated.
That'll still take a while.
Regards,
Joey
--
Life is too short to run proprietary software. --
Otavio Salvador wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Donnellan wrote:
It's been a while since the last update: how long to go before r1?
Dunno.
Ryan (ftpmaster) won't give a green light for r1 until the kernel
has been updated.
Kernel of sarge? 2.6.8
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I've been waiting for the latest updates to etch to hit the mirrors,
but I can't figure out when they'll get there. Is the time of the mirror
pulse documented anywhere for the benefit of the obsessive?
Incidentally, mirror.debian.org/status.html is dead.
The mirror
Johannes Rohr wrote:
Dear release team,
unfortunately the f-prot-installer package is again broken by upstream
changes. The release of f-prot 4.6.2 includes a modification of the
check-updates.pl script incompatible with the installer script in the
package. Therefore I would like to ask for
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Bug 285025 is fixed in sarge and etch; do I need to leave the bug
open? Is there anything I need to do about it?
Thanks for the note, I'll update the woody package with the large
patch.
Regards,
Joey
--
This is GNU/Linux Country. On a quiet night, you
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi Joey,
please also update base-config.
#154482 is still valid for sarge, and is very annoying.
From the first glance this looks like a wrong setting in the debconf db.
-- dpkg-reconfigure base-config with proper priorities
Regards,
Joey
--
Testing?
Colin Watson wrote:
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
please also update base-config.
#154482 is still valid for sarge, and is very annoying.
From the first glance this looks like a wrong setting in the debconf db.
-- dpkg-reconfigure base-config with proper priorities
(a) You
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:58:27AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
When is the first stable update planned to be released?
I would like to update sarge before September, but haven't heard
back from ftpmaster yet whether this would be possible
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:20:49PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I would like to upload the following release to sarge to fix a grave bug
(#318463), and taking the opportunity to fix a few other potential
core-dumping inducing bugs. All of these are cherry picked from
Alexander Sack wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 05:11:01PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
If you would like to get a package updated in the stable release, you
are advised to talk to the stable release manager first (see
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization).
Changelog
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
When is the first stable update planned to be released?
I would like to update sarge before September, but haven't heard
back from ftpmaster yet whether this would be possible.
Regards,
Joey
--
MIME - broken solution for a broken design. -- Ralf Baechle
--
To
to Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Last updated 2005/08/20 17:09 MET
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Johannes Rohr wrote:
I am not sure whether this is really the appropriate place for my
inquiry. I am the maintainer of f-prot-installer, an installer package
for the F-Prot virus scanner, which is in contrib.
Currently the installer is broken due to a minor change in the F-Prot
tarball that
-masters releasing 3.1r1. They have the
final power to accept a package or not. If you want to comment on
this list, please send a mail to Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Last updated 2005/07/08 09:16 MET
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
Steffen Grunewald wrote:
Hi Joey,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:18:16AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update
==
An up-to-date version is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.1r1/.
I am
Michael Stone wrote:
[3] What is the proper contact procedure? debian-admin seems to be a
black hole at the moment--who should [EMAIL PROTECTED] contact
about buildd problems if not d-a?
d-a is wrong, James and Ryan are the people to contact. They are on
d-a as well, though.
[4] I'm sure
Steve Langasek wrote:
Currently, I am planning to stick around for etch. If we're still waiting
for etch two years from now, it's hard to predict how I'll feel at that
point. :)
Ugh! However, that'd be still one year faster than sarge...
Regards,
Joey
--
Reading is a lost art
Jérôme Marant wrote:
(Please CC me on reply)
Hi,
I think we are going to add many fixes to emacs21 until emacs22
comes out and it would be nice to add those fixes to stable
as well.
Err... did you notice that stable has been released recently?
Do you know what stable means? And what's
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:16:00PM -0700, Ian Eure wrote:
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 04:54 pm, Hilko Bengen wrote:
Just a few hours ago, the Drupal project has released version 4.5.3, a
bugfix release which fixes a serious security bug. I have created and
just
Roger Leigh wrote:
There are at least two RC bugs waiting stuck at Needs-Build on the
alpha buildd (samba, ettercap) for quite a while now. Has the alpha
buildd keeled over?
Yes, we had experienced a problem yesterday. Thiemo got the machine back
up abut stopped the buildd. The buildd
power to accept a package or not. If you want to comment on
this list, please send a mail to Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Last updated 2005/05/06 08:52 MET
--
If nothing changes, everything will remain the same. -- Barne's Law
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Holger Levsen wrote:
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 12:42, Martin Schulze wrote:
Hmmm... the only mail address for stable security support on
http://www.debian.org/intro/organization is [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] didnt seem appropriate to me.
What's wrong with that address
Holger Levsen wrote:
Howto handle security fixes for fai-kernels
---
fai-kernels uses the kernel-source-2.4.27 and kernel-source-2.6.8 packages.
If these packages get updated with a security fix, fai-kernels needs to be
rebuild.
The
Steve Langasek wrote:
- Nothing in the source or binary package names matches the
kernel.*2\.(4\.27|6\.8) regexp that I've been using so far to identify the
kernel packages requiring attention
I have no knowledge of how important the latter is to the security team;
they may not be bothered
Riku Voipio wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 05:10:05AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
lsh-utils 2.0-1 needed, have 1.4.2-8.2 for CAN-2005-0389
lsh-utils 2.0.1-1 needed, have 1.4.2-8.2 for CAN-2005-0814
(Also has a RC bug though.)
yeah, that doesn't sound like a win yet (though it's
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Security support can turn out to be a nightmare if build dependencies
aren't fulfilled.
As security bloke I can only agree to this.
Regards,
Joey
--
Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Andreas Barth wrote:
Ok, summarising this means for me:
If we change the abi for d-i, than a lot of work at a lot of places
needs to be done. Definitly possible, but not the thing we want to do
for each security upgrade. On the other side, as long as we keep the
old kernel around, and
Sven Luther wrote:
We'd need at least a list of module packages that we need to
recompile when a kernel update changes the ABI and all the
modules become void.
This also means that we need to be able to rebuild modules from
their corresponding source package.
Notice that enabling
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 08:04:30AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
I've also been told that many module packages aren't built the Debian
way with a .dsc file that can be used as basis for dpkg-buildpackage
or similar. This makes the problem more difficult
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 10:28:27PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
In the light of #291700 I prepared a new PostgreSQL stable upload. It
fixes a grave misbehaviour if a database is called peer, and fixes
the calling of dpkg --compare-versions which caused the help screen to
Christian Perrier wrote:
Security and release teams, may I have your advice about this suggestion?
As you may know, I currently act as maintainer for the shadow package,
but I'm also aware of my own weaknesses when it comes at security (and
security-related) issues so I prefer getting the
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update
==
An up-to-date version is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.0r5/.
I am preparing the next revision of the current stable Debian
distribution (woody) and will infrequently send reports
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update
==
An up-to-date version is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.0r4/.
I am preparing the next revision of the current stable Debian
distribution (woody) and will infrequently send reports
Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update
==
An up-to-date version is at http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.0r4/.
I am preparing the next revision of the current stable Debian
distribution (woody) and will infrequently send reports
Santiago Vila wrote:
Not directly related to 3.0r4, but while we are at it:
Would be possible to remove packages in security.debian.org which are
already part of 3.0r3?
What would we gain from this?
I would not like that but maybe you have a good reason for asking.
Regards,
Joey
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 19:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
Not directly related to 3.0r4, but while we are at it:
Would be possible to remove packages in security.debian.org which are
already part of 3.0r3?
Isn't that not correct, since someone who installs from 3.0 or
Joey Hess wrote:
perl 5.8.4-4 needed, have 5.8.4-3 for CAN-2004-0976
Still missing mipsel build, should probably be re-queued or
uploaded manually.
I suspect there is a problem with the buildd host. Perl builds (and
runs) fine in environments outside of this particular buildd.
the
final power to accept a package or not. If you want to comment on
this list, please send a mail to Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Last updated 2004/11/26 12:48 MET
--
Of course, I didn't mean that, which is why I didn't say it.
What I meant to say, I said. -- Thomas Bushnell
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
