Your message dated Thu, 4 Apr 2019 21:18:10 +0200
with message-id <20190404191809.65easftjvluvs...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#926299: unblock: busybox/1:1.30.1-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #926299,
regarding unblock: busybox/1:1.30.1-4
to be marked as done.
This means th
n busybox-udeb.
>
> Should we (RT) unblock it now or do you prefer waiting (as I
> understand it there is d-i release coming up).
>
> unblock busybox/1:1.30.1-4
If you see a package that gets uploaded with a patch of mine for a bug
report I opened, mentioning I'd like to see it fixe
it there is d-i release coming up).
unblock busybox/1:1.30.1-4
Thanks,
~Niels
Control: retitle -1 unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1
Control: tag -1 confirmed
Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org (2015-02-21):
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
Control: tags -1 d-i
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:30:50PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I just did so and uploaded 1:1.22.0-9
Processing control commands:
retitle -1 unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1
Bug #771208 [release.debian.org] unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-14
Changed Bug title to 'unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1' from 'unblock:
busybox/1:1.22.0-14'
tag -1 confirmed
Bug #771208 [release.debian.org] unblock
Your message dated Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:59:05 +0100
with message-id 20150227175905.ge6...@ugent.be
and subject line Re: Bug#771208: unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-14
has caused the Debian Bug report #771208,
regarding unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
Control: tags -1 d-i
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:30:50PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I just did so and uploaded 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1 to t-p-u.
I unblocked it, but it needs a d-i ack.
Please push both your jessie branch and tag to git.
This probably counts as a
Processing control commands:
tags -1 - moreinfo
Bug #771208 [release.debian.org] unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-14
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
tags -1 d-i
Bug #771208 [release.debian.org] unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-14
Added tag(s) d-i.
--
771208: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=771208
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 08:52:05AM +0100, Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org
wrote:
Could you do a new upload with only the security fix?
I just did so and uploaded 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1 to t-p-u.
Regards,
--
Mehdi Dogguy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org (2015-02-18):
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 08:52:05AM +0100, Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org
wrote:
Could you do a new upload with only the security fix?
I just did so and uploaded 1:1.22.0-9+deb8u1 to t-p-u.
Please push both your jessie branch and tag to
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:30:50PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org
wrote:
Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org (2015-02-18):
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 08:52:05AM +0100, Ivo De Decker iv...@debian.org
wrote:
Could you do a new upload with only the security fix?
I just did so
Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org (2015-02-18):
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:30:50PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org
wrote:
Please push both your jessie branch and tag to git.
I don't have write access to d-i repos.
Wrong.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
11.12.2014 10:52, Ivo De Decker wrote:
[]
As the libc issue with the static binary seems to be fixed in the libc version
in both jessie and sid, the only remaining issue is the missing build-using,
which can wait till after jessie.
Could you do a new upload with only the security fix?
I'll
Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru (2014-12-11):
11.12.2014 10:52, Ivo De Decker wrote:
[]
As the libc issue with the static binary seems to be fixed in the libc
version
in both jessie and sid, the only remaining issue is the missing build-using,
which can wait till after jessie.
11.12.2014 13:02, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Hi,
Hello
can you please still push your master branch and tags to the git
repository? Last commit there points to debian/1.22.0-9 which is
5 revisions old, at least if I'm reading cgit and gitk properly.
Oh yeah. I'm sorry about that. Pushed now.
On Thursday 11 December 2014 08:52:05 Ivo De Decker wrote:
#768876 is tagged jessie-ignore so I'm really unconvinced by the
debian/rules changes.
It is jessie-ignore just to be non-RC. The fun with static linking
and bugs it discovered shows that proper Built-Using field is really
Processing control commands:
tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #771208 [release.debian.org] unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-14
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
771208: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=771208
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi Michael,
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:08:49PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
#768876 is tagged jessie-ignore so I'm really unconvinced by the
debian/rules changes.
It is jessie-ignore just to be non-RC. The fun with static linking
and bugs it discovered shows
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:00:03 +0100 Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org wrote:
(Putting on my d-i RM fedora.)
#768876 is tagged jessie-ignore so I'm really unconvinced by the
debian/rules changes.
At this stage, I'd rather see the security fix only.
Wouldn't that entail that #769190 would NOT
is used in d-i too, I kindly request for a
udeb-unblock too.
Previously I submitted an unblock request for busybox 1.22.0-10,
as #769129, but that turned out to be a bit preliminary because
of the fun with libc versioned build dependency iterations.
Thank you!
/mjt
unblock busybox/1:1.22.0-14
(Putting on my d-i RM fedora.)
Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru (2014-11-27):
Please unblock package busybox. Last upload has one security bugfix
(CVE-2014-4607, #768945), the fix is from upstream stable branch,
fixing an integer overflow in lzo decompressor; it adds a Built-Using
control
27.11.2014 19:00, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
(Putting on my d-i RM fedora.)
Thank you for your review.
Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru (2014-11-27):
Please unblock package busybox. Last upload has one security bugfix
(CVE-2014-4607, #768945), the fix is from upstream stable branch,
fixing an
Debian Bug Tracking System ow...@bugs.debian.org (2014-11-12):
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:12:21 +
From: Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org
To: Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru, 769129-d...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#769129: unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-10
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03
On 2014-11-23 16:59, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
[...]
Closing for now, feel free to reopen when you're ready.
Niels still has an unblock for it.
FTR, I'm personally scared by d's output.
Mraw,
KiBi.
Not any more, sorry. I had forgotten about this thread, when I noticed
the RC bug fix
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 20:02:35 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
So this was a bit preliminary (following the notify the release team
early rule too aggressively) -- this very Built-Using generation was
broken due to an error on my part (trivial) and due to bug in dpkg,
#588505. I just
14.11.2014 12:42, Julien Cristau wrote:
FWIW I don't believe build-conflicts on libc achieve anything, so I'm
unhappy with -13.
I'm not happy with it either, but why do you say it does not achieve
anything? Why do you say so, is this control field ignored?
At any rate I changed that to
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 13:02:04 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
14.11.2014 12:42, Julien Cristau wrote:
FWIW I don't believe build-conflicts on libc achieve anything, so I'm
unhappy with -13.
I'm not happy with it either, but why do you say it does not achieve
anything? Why do you say
14.11.2014 13:12, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 13:02:04 +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
14.11.2014 12:42, Julien Cristau wrote:
FWIW I don't believe build-conflicts on libc achieve anything, so I'm
unhappy with -13.
I'm not happy with it either, but why do you say it does
Your message dated Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:12:21 +
with message-id 20141112201221.gh21...@lupin.home.powdarrmonkey.net
and subject line Re: Bug#769129: unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-10
has caused the Debian Bug report #769129,
regarding unblock: busybox/1:1.22.0-10
to be marked as done.
This means
that -- I took the contents of $shlibs:Depends
variable for the dynamically-linked version, and transformed it into
a list of sources required for Built-Using using dpkg-query.
There's no code changes except the lzo decompression bugfix, only
packaging changes.
Thank you!
/mjt
unblock busybox/1
11.11.2014 18:08, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Please unblock package busybox. Last upload has one security bugfix
(CVE-2014-4607, #768945), the fix is from upstream stable branch,
fixing an integer overflow in lzo decompressor; it adds a Built-Using
control field for busybox-static variant
Your message dated Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:54:00 +0100
with message-id 1366224840.6483.12.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
and subject line Re: Bug#702278: busybox upload
has caused the Debian Bug report #702278,
regarding unblock: busybox/1:1.20.0-8
to be marked as done.
This means that you
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:00:39PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk (04/03/2013):
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 19:07 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
please unblock busybox 1:1.20.0-8. It fixes CVE-2013-1813
security tracker says:
[squeeze] - busybox
Processing control commands:
tags -1 + confirmed d-i
Bug #702278 [release.debian.org] unblock: busybox/1:1.20.0-8
Added tag(s) d-i and confirmed.
--
702278: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=702278
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 19:07 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
please unblock busybox 1:1.20.0-8. It fixes CVE-2013-1813
There's also a few feature fixes in there, which I hope don't turn out
to be issues...
(Includes a udeb)
Tagging and CCing on that basis
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk (04/03/2013):
On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 19:07 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
please unblock busybox 1:1.20.0-8. It fixes CVE-2013-1813
security tracker says:
[squeeze] - busybox no-dsa (Minor issue)
There's also a few feature fixes in there, which I
it easy to group
upstream and non-upstream patches.
So the only change in this release is to remove forced-alignment of
static strings on s390(x).
Thanks!
/mjt
unblock busybox/1:1.20.0-6
diff -Nru busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog
--- busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 12:33:36PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Please unblock package busybox.
The version in unstable fixes a single bug - busybox basically was
unusable on s390(x) due to a programming error. The single fix
merely removes __attribute__(aligned(1)) and similar qualifiers
Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru (06/08/2012):
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package busybox.
ACK for d-i. Thanks!
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hello,
just replying for the sake of people reading -boot@ and wondering:
Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org (06/08/2012):
This is fine from a RT point of view, thanks. But given that this package
needs the d-i RM ACK and I couldn't find a definite answer in the archives,
this still needs
Your message dated Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:49:28 +0200
with message-id 20120806094928.ga13...@spike.0x539.de
and subject line Re: Bug#684005: unblock: busybox/1:1.20.0-6
has caused the Debian Bug report #684005,
regarding unblock: busybox/1:1.20.0-6
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
. This bugreport is here since
Jan-2008, ie, for 4.5 years already.
That's appreciated (and works fine).
P.S. This is my first unblock request, so I'm not yet sure how to do
it all properly.
Looks pretty much OK to me.
unblock busybox/1:1.20.0-5
Release team: ACK on the d-i side, urgent
thing
to do -- to upload first and request to unblock later, when
there might be questionable changes.
unblock busybox/1:1.20.0-5
Release team: ACK on the d-i side, urgent appreciated while you're at
it.
Thank you for your time!
/mjt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ
not yet sure how to do
it all properly.
Thank you for your time!
unblock busybox/1:1.20.0-5
--- debdiff ---
diff -Nru busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog
--- busybox-1.20.0/debian/changelog 2012-06-12 22:06:01.0 +0400
+++ busybox-1.20.0/debian
Hello,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote:
Quoting Paul Wise (p...@debian.org):
Hi all,
Would it be possible to unblock busybox? It has been waiting for 117
days with no RC bugs. If it is not unblocked then there will be no
udhcpc/udhcpc packages
On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 04:23 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote:
Quoting Paul Wise (p...@debian.org):
Hi all,
Would it be possible to unblock busybox? It has been waiting for 117
days with no RC bugs
Hi all,
Would it be possible to unblock busybox? It has been waiting for 117
days with no RC bugs. If it is not unblocked then there will be no
udhcpc/udhcpc packages in squeeze (there were in lenny).
[I'm subscribed to -release, no need to CC]
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Quoting Paul Wise (p...@debian.org):
Hi all,
Would it be possible to unblock busybox? It has been waiting for 117
days with no RC bugs. If it is not unblocked then there will be no
udhcpc/udhcpc packages in squeeze (there were in lenny).
[I'm subscribed to -release, no need to CC
Hi folks
Please unblock busybox/1:1.10.2-2.
It fixes several regressions for updates from Etch.
Bastian
--
We Klingons believe as you do -- the sick should die. Only the strong
should live.
-- Kras, Friday's Child, stardate 3497.2
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi folks
Please unblock busybox/1:1.10.2-2.
It fixes several regressions for updates from Etch.
No objection
- --
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
Bastian Blank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please unblock busybox/1:1.10.2-2.
Unblock.
Marc
--
BOFH #418:
Sysadmins busy fighting SPAM.
pgpKpWEgWMox0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
51 matches
Mail list logo
