Bug#1023105: bullseye-pu: package tinyxml/2.6.2-4+deb11u1
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
[ Reason ]
Fixing the no-dsa tagged CVE-2021-42260
[ Impact ]
DoS vulnerability
[ Tests ]
General testing of a few reverse-dependencies.
[ Risks ]
Targeted fix that has been sitting in bookworm, stretch and buster
for a while without any bug reports.
[ Checklist ]
[x] *all* changes are documented in the d/changelog
[x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
[x] attach debdiff against the package in (old)stable
[x] the issue is verified as fixed in unstable
[ Changes ]
Fixes potential infinite loop in parser code.diff -Nru tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/changelog tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/changelog
--- tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/changelog 2016-10-20 20:36:11.0 +0200
+++ tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/changelog 2022-10-20 16:32:51.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+tinyxml (2.6.2-4+deb11u1) bullseye; urgency=medium
+
+ * Import fix for CVE-2021-42260.
+- Add CVE-2021-42260.patch
+
+ -- Felix Geyer Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:32:51 +0200
+
tinyxml (2.6.2-4) unstable; urgency=medium
[ Helmut Grohne ]
diff -Nru tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/patches/CVE-2021-42260.patch
tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/patches/CVE-2021-42260.patch
--- tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/patches/CVE-2021-42260.patch 1970-01-01
01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/patches/CVE-2021-42260.patch 2022-10-20
16:31:07.0 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Description: In stamp always advance the pointer if *p= 0xef
+ .
+ The current implementation only advanced if 0xef is followed
+ by two non-zero bytes. In case of malformed input (0xef should be
+ the start byte of a three byte character) this leads to an infinite
+ loop. (CVE-2021-42260)
+Origin: https://sourceforge.net/p/tinyxml/git/merge-requests/1/
+
+--- a/tinyxmlparser.cpp
b/tinyxmlparser.cpp
+@@ -274,6 +274,12 @@ void TiXmlParsingData::Stamp( const char* now,
TiXmlEncoding encoding )
+ else
+ { p +=3; ++col; }
// A normal character.
+ }
++ else
++ {
++ // TIXML_UTF_LEAD_0 (239) is
the start character of a 3 byte sequence, so
++ // there is something wrong
here. Just advance the pointer to evade infinite loops
++ ++p;
++ }
+ }
+ else
+ {
diff -Nru tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/patches/series
tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/patches/series
--- tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/patches/series 2011-05-19 10:42:07.0 +0200
+++ tinyxml-2.6.2/debian/patches/series 2022-10-20 16:32:49.0 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
enforce-use-stl.patch
entity-encoding.patch
+CVE-2021-42260.patch
Processed: UPCOMING REMOVAL, also: New upstream release - new home, new repo layout
Processing control commands: > severity -1 serious Bug #1022009 [src:dleyna-core] dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal' > clone 1022009 -2 Bug #1022009 [src:dleyna-core] dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Bug 1022009 cloned as bug 1023093 1022003 was blocked by: 1022008 1019353 1022007 1022011 1022009 1022010 1022003 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1022003: 1023093 > reassign -2 dleyna-connector-dbus Bug #1023093 [src:dleyna-core] dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Bug reassigned from package 'src:dleyna-core' to 'dleyna-connector-dbus'. No longer marked as found in versions dleyna-core/0.7.0-1. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1023093 to the same values previously set > retitle -2 dleyna-connector-dbus: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Bug #1023093 [dleyna-connector-dbus] dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Changed Bug title to 'dleyna-connector-dbus: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0' from 'dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0'. -- 1022003: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022003 1022009: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022009 1023093: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1023093 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: UPCOMING REMOVAL, also: New upstream release - new home, new repo layout
Processing control commands: > severity -1 serious Bug #1022010 [dleyna-renderer] dleyna-renderer: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal' > clone 1022009 -2 Bug #1022009 [src:dleyna-core] dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Bug 1022009 cloned as bug 1023094 1022003 was blocked by: 1022009 1019353 1022007 1022010 1022011 1023093 1022008 1022003 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1022003: 1023094 > reassign -2 dleyna-connector-dbus Bug #1023094 [src:dleyna-core] dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Bug reassigned from package 'src:dleyna-core' to 'dleyna-connector-dbus'. No longer marked as found in versions dleyna-core/0.7.0-1. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1023094 to the same values previously set > retitle -2 dleyna-connector-dbus: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Bug #1023094 [dleyna-connector-dbus] dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Changed Bug title to 'dleyna-connector-dbus: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0' from 'dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0'. -- 1022003: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022003 1022009: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022009 1022010: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022010 1023094: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1023094 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: UPCOMING REMOVAL, also: New upstream release - new home, new repo layout
Processing control commands: > severity -1 serious Bug #1022011 [dleyna-server] dleyna-server: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal' > clone 1022009 -2 Bug #1022009 [src:dleyna-core] dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Bug 1022009 cloned as bug 1023095 1022003 was blocked by: 1023094 1023093 1019353 1022009 1022007 1022011 1022010 1022008 1022003 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 1022003: 1023095 > reassign -2 dleyna-connector-dbus Bug #1023095 [src:dleyna-core] dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Bug reassigned from package 'src:dleyna-core' to 'dleyna-connector-dbus'. No longer marked as found in versions dleyna-core/0.7.0-1. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1023095 to the same values previously set > retitle -2 dleyna-connector-dbus: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Bug #1023095 [dleyna-connector-dbus] dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0 Changed Bug title to 'dleyna-connector-dbus: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0' from 'dleyna-core: transition to gssdp/gupnp 1.6.0'. -- 1022003: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022003 1022009: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022009 1022011: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022011 1023095: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1023095 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1022003: transition: gssdp/gupnp 1.6: Status update + prepared to start
TL;DR I consider myself ready to start the transition now, with removals in the plan. * gupnp/experimental has now successfully built on s390x - this verifies gssdp 1.6.0-2 (with patch from upstream) fixes an old bug caught by the (new) gupnp test * Note: ppc64el has still not built experimental packages yet * Following rdeps are now prepared in experimental: - rygel 0.42.0-1 - gupnp-tools 1.2.0-1 - gupnp-igd 1.2.0-2 - caja-extensions 1.26.1-1.1 * Plan to file for RM RoQA dleyna - has a new upstream and 4 repos/sources merged into 1. - NEW dleyna 0.8 packages prepped in https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dleyna - needs maintainer + NEW - details in https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-gnome-maintainers/2022-October/174113.html ( #1022009 #1022010 #1022011 #1023093 ) - I will possibly upload 0.8 to experimental for exposure after transition is done (via NEW, not sure if Debian QA maintained packages is accepted in NEW). * Suggestion to temporarily remove librm (+ roger-router) from testing - as previously mentioned upstream porting to gssdp/gupnp 1.6 is broken - needs porting to libsoup 3.0 - upstream main branch has had this issue for 10+ months. - No response yet in https://gitlab.com/tabos/librm/-/issues/4 or #1022008 Unless someone tells me I missed something I'll start uploading to unstable as soon as I feel I have a free time slot (which might be later today). Regards, Andreas Henriksson
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: libdatetime-timezone-perl_2.47-1+2022f_source.changes ACCEPT
Bug#1022926: transition: glibc 2.36
Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.36.html Control: tags -1 moreinfo On 2022-10-27 21:36:11 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-gl...@lists.debian.org > > Dear release team, > > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.36. It has been > available in experimental for a bit more than one month and does not > have any known major issue. It has been built successfully on all > release architectures and many ports architectures. A few issues found > through the autopkgtest pseudo excuses for experimental have been fixed. > The remaining ones are due to britney bugs, broken autopkgtest or > packages parts of the transition. > > As glibc is using symbol versioning, there is no soname change. That > said a few packages are using libc internal symbols and have to be > rebuilt for this transition. Here is the corresponding ben file: > > title = "glibc"; > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(< is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.37\)/; > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.36\)/; > > In addition a few new symbols have been added that might prevent a few > other packages to migrate to testing until glibc migrates if they pick > up the new symbols, however those are really limited in this version and > mostly linked to new filesystem, processes or random functions, so > unlikely to be massively used by default. > > Note that this version builds with GCC 12 instead of GCC 11, so it is a > prerequisite for not shipping bookworm with GCC 11. Speaking of GCC 12 … #1022991 seems to have a first patch available upstream. Is there any chance that we could start this transition together with a fix for that bug? Cheers > > Thanks for considering. > > Regards, > Aurelien > -- Sebastian Ramacher
Processed: Re: Bug#1022926: transition: glibc 2.36
Processing control commands: > forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.36.html Bug #1022926 [release.debian.org] transition: glibc 2.36 Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.36.html'. > tags -1 moreinfo Bug #1022926 [release.debian.org] transition: glibc 2.36 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1022926: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022926 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1023118: bullseye-pu: package distro-info-data/0.51+deb11u3
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bullseye User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu X-Debbugs-Cc: bdr...@debian.org As usual, a distro-info-data update. [ Reason ] There's a new Ubuntu development release, and also some minor Debian changes. * Update data to 0.55: - Update Debian ELTS dates to ~10 years of support (Closes: #1014837) - Correct release date of Debian 8 (jessie) to 2015-04-26 - Add dates for Ubuntu 23.04, Lunar Lobster (LP: #1993667) [ Impact ] Debian stable is unaware of the current Ubuntu development release, and Debian ELTS support periods. Currently: $ ubuntu-distro-info -d ubuntu-distro-info: Distribution data outdated. Please check for an update for distro-info-data. See /usr/share/doc/distro-info-data/README.Debian for details. $ debian-distro-info --elts stretch Expected: $ ubuntu-distro-info -d lunar $ debian-distro-info --elts jessie stretch [ Tests ] Autopkgtests passed. Manually tested as above. [ Risks ] Data-only package, this will bring it up to parity with unstable. [ Checklist ] [x] *all* changes are documented in the d/changelog [x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them [x] attach debdiff against the package in (old)stable [x] the issue is verified as fixed in unstable commit 9fb1990fe6d70cfbac351ad780b672bf4478a8e5 Author: Stefano Rivera Date: Sun Oct 30 13:32:12 2022 +0200 Update data to 0.55: * Update data to 0.55: - Update Debian ELTS dates to ~10 years of support (Closes: #1014837) - Correct release date of Debian 8 (jessie) to 2015-04-26 - Add dates for Ubuntu 23.04, Lunar Lobster (LP: #1993667) diff --git a/debian.csv b/debian.csv index 967a3f0..6d06e13 100644 --- a/debian.csv +++ b/debian.csv @@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ version,codename,series,created,release,eol,eol-lts,eol-elts 5.0,Lenny,lenny,2007-04-08,2009-02-14,2012-02-06 6.0,Squeeze,squeeze,2009-02-14,2011-02-06,2014-05-31,2016-02-29 7,Wheezy,wheezy,2011-02-06,2013-05-04,2016-04-26,2018-05-31,2020-06-30 -8,Jessie,jessie,2013-05-04,2015-04-25,2018-06-17,2020-06-30,2022-06-30 -9,Stretch,stretch,2015-04-25,2017-06-17,2020-07-06,2022-06-30,2024-06-30 -10,Buster,buster,2017-06-17,2019-07-06,2022-08-14,2024-06-30,2026-06-30 +8,Jessie,jessie,2013-05-04,2015-04-26,2018-06-17,2020-06-30,2025-06-30 +9,Stretch,stretch,2015-04-26,2017-06-17,2020-07-06,2022-06-30,2027-06-30 +10,Buster,buster,2017-06-17,2019-07-06,2022-08-14,2024-06-30,2029-06-30 11,Bullseye,bullseye,2019-07-06,2021-08-14,2024-08-14 12,Bookworm,bookworm,2021-08-14 13,Trixie,trixie,2023-08-01 diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index 4e7670c..8e078e3 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +distro-info-data (0.51+deb11u3) bullseye; urgency=medium + + * Update data to 0.55: +- Update Debian ELTS dates to ~10 years of support (Closes: #1014837) +- Correct release date of Debian 8 (jessie) to 2015-04-26 +- Add dates for Ubuntu 23.04, Lunar Lobster (LP: #1993667) + + -- Stefano Rivera Sun, 30 Oct 2022 13:31:55 +0200 + distro-info-data (0.51+deb11u2) bullseye; urgency=medium * Update data to 0.53: diff --git a/ubuntu.csv b/ubuntu.csv index eeaacff..4706da8 100644 --- a/ubuntu.csv +++ b/ubuntu.csv @@ -36,3 +36,4 @@ version,codename,series,created,release,eol,eol-server,eol-esm 21.10,Impish Indri,impish,2021-04-22,2021-10-14,2022-07-14 22.04 LTS,Jammy Jellyfish,jammy,2021-10-14,2022-04-21,2027-04-21,2027-04-21,2032-04-21 22.10,Kinetic Kudu,kinetic,2022-04-21,2022-10-20,2023-07-20 +23.04,Lunar Lobster,lunar,2022-10-20,2023-04-27,2024-01-25
Processed: Re: Bug#1022248: transition: icu
Processing control commands: > tags -1 -moreinfo Bug #1022248 [release.debian.org] transition: icu Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1022248: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022248 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1022248: transition: icu
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 11:39 PM Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2022-10-22 19:17:58 +0200, László Böszörményi wrote: > > Transition is similar to the previous ones, this time boost1.74 needs > > to be binNMUed after level1 before other level2 packages and pyicu > > will need a sourceful upload (its Git version seems to be ready, but I > > wait for its release). > > I've set up the tracker. Please remove the moreinfo tag once the test > builds are done. I can report the following. Rebuilds are done and pyicu (Python wrapper for ICU) supporting 72.1 is released and packaged. Two immediate problems were found and fixed by its upstream. It can be binNMUed for ICU 72.1 version. Package nodejs further updated for Sid, flaky test remained. Wile it builds on buildd machines, locally I get: not ok 3161 sequential/test-debugger-preserve-breaks # TODO : Fix flaky test duration_ms: 31.372 severity: flaky exitcode: 1 Package 0ad and gnucash fail to build [1][2] with ICU 72.1 and bugs are filed. Package supercollider failed to build due to another issue [3]. Its packaging Git has a working fix and after applying that it was built with ICU 72.1 as well. Cheers, Laszlo/GCS [1] https://bugs.debian.org/1023121 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/1023122 [3] https://bugs.debian.org/1019995
NEW changes in stable-new
Processing changes file: libdatetime-timezone-perl_2.47-1+2022f_all-buildd.changes ACCEPT
Bug#1022926: transition: glibc 2.36
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 05:10:13PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: >... > Speaking of GCC 12 … #1022991 seems to have a first patch available > upstream. Is there any chance that we could start this transition > together with a fix for that bug? IMHO it would be better to have 2.35 uploaded with a one-line fix/revert ASAP to have everything waiting behind gcc-12 for testing migration unblocked. The 2.36 transition could then start a few hours or weeks later. > Cheers cu Adrian
Bug#1022003: transition: gssdp/gupnp 1.6: Status update + prepared to start
Hello, On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 09:46:11AM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > TL;DR I consider myself ready to start the transition now, with removals > in the plan. [...] > Unless someone tells me I missed something I'll start uploading to > unstable as soon as I feel I have a free time slot (which might be later > today). gssdp_1.6.0-3_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable gupnp_1.6.0-3_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable gupnp-igd_1.2.0-3_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable gupnp-tools_0.12.0-2_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable rygel_0.42.0-2_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable I'll try to poke caja-extensions maintainers to see if they want to upload to unstable (but since I haven't heard anything so far I'll probably go ahead and NMU it again to unstable tomorrow). I've also filed RM bugs for dleyna-* see: #1023131 #1023133 #1023134 #1023135 I've poked the librm bug report again and raised severity to serious. Please consider removing librm (+ roger-router) from testing when it's the only remaining blocker for finishing the transition. Regards, Andreas Henriksson
Bug#1022705: marked as done (unplanned transition: ghostscript)
Your message dated Sun, 30 Oct 2022 18:39:38 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#1022705: unplanned transition: ghostscript has caused the Debian Bug report #1022705, regarding unplanned transition: ghostscript to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1022705: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1022705 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition X-Debbugs-Cc: d...@jones.dk Forwarded: https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-ghostscript.html Affects: src:ghostscript src:gimp src:dvisvgm src:libspectre src:xfig ghostscript appears to have started an unscheduled transition from libgs9 and libgs9-common to libgs10 and libgs-common. libgs-common Breaks and Replaces libgs9-common, so the affected packages will all have to migrate together. Looking at ghostscript's changelog, it seems this might have been accidental? There's no mention of the experimental version having been intentionally re-uploaded to unstable. https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-ghostscript.html looks like it is tracking the affected packages, so I haven't tried to write a ben file for this. Please coordinate with the release team to either finish or revert this transition. Thanks, smcv --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On 2022-10-28 01:30:03 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2022-10-24 15:15:09 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Also, it would have been nice to disentangle the -common rename from the > > > SONAME > > > bump. > > > > Yes, I agree that would have been more elegant. > > I have uploaded a new version that partially reverts the change. > Unfortunately, libgs9-common contained the unversioned ICC profiles, so > we will end up some Breaks+Replaces for the bullseye to bookworm > upgrade. With that in mind, the new version keeps the ICC profiles in > libgs-common and the version specific files are moved back to > libgs10-common. … and the tranistion is now done. libgs9 was removed from testing. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher--- End Message ---
Bug#1022926: transition: glibc 2.36
On 2022-10-30 17:10, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: forwarded -1
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/glibc-2.36.html
> Control: tags -1 moreinfo
>
> On 2022-10-27 21:36:11 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> > X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-gl...@lists.debian.org
> >
> > Dear release team,
> >
> > I would like to get a transition slot for glibc 2.36. It has been
> > available in experimental for a bit more than one month and does not
> > have any known major issue. It has been built successfully on all
> > release architectures and many ports architectures. A few issues found
> > through the autopkgtest pseudo excuses for experimental have been fixed.
> > The remaining ones are due to britney bugs, broken autopkgtest or
> > packages parts of the transition.
> >
> > As glibc is using symbol versioning, there is no soname change. That
> > said a few packages are using libc internal symbols and have to be
> > rebuilt for this transition. Here is the corresponding ben file:
> >
> > title = "glibc";
> > is_affected = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(< > is_good = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.37\)/;
> > is_bad = .depends ~ /libc[0-9.]* \(<< 2.36\)/;
> >
> > In addition a few new symbols have been added that might prevent a few
> > other packages to migrate to testing until glibc migrates if they pick
> > up the new symbols, however those are really limited in this version and
> > mostly linked to new filesystem, processes or random functions, so
> > unlikely to be massively used by default.
> >
> > Note that this version builds with GCC 12 instead of GCC 11, so it is a
> > prerequisite for not shipping bookworm with GCC 11.
>
> Speaking of GCC 12 … #1022991 seems to have a first patch available
> upstream. Is there any chance that we could start this transition
> together with a fix for that bug?
I would not say we have patch yet. I posted a first patch on the mailing
list yesterday [1], and we have two epidermic answers from both sides
("Why this patch is approved?" or "So MIPS ABI idiocrasies strike
again"). One come with a proposal and another one with a partial patch.
So that's 3 different options in total. I am also worried that the
problem could be more widespread as there is a claim that clock_adjtime
is broken on all 64bit system.
So IMHO, we should just wait that things calm done, and that people
really try to understand the problem, its consequences and how to fix
it, instead of just proposing random patches.
But once we have something acceptable, I am find including it either in
a 2.35 upload or a 2.36 one, both are fine to me.
Regards
Aurelien
[1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2022-October/143049.html
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Processed: Re: Bug#1020799: Transition: pkg-config to pkgconf: next steps
Processing control commands: > tags -1 confirmed Bug #1020799 [release.debian.org] transition: pkg-config Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 1020799: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1020799 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1020799: Transition: pkg-config to pkgconf: next steps
Control: tags -1 confirmed On 2022-10-20 11:25:13 +0100, Andrej Shadura wrote: > Hi all, > > I’ve been rebuilding packages with pkgconf for the past couple of weeks, and > it looks very good so far: > > http://pkgconf-migration.debian.net/ > > I have identified and resolved some issues, and most of the build failures > I’ve seen were not related to pkgconf itself, but were caused by external > factors and were usually present when packages were built as usual (missing > build dependencies, compiler errors etc). Thanks for the update. Please go ahead with this change whenever you are ready. Cheers > > The version of pkgconf package providing the pkg-config binary package has > been sitting in experimental for some time. I think I have tested the upgrade > process quite extensively, but it would still be great if someone else could > have a look. In any case, my plan is to upload it to unstable in about two > weeks time. I will then commence another round of rebuilds; meanwhile I will > be working on fixing issues I’ve already run into: > > https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?user=andrewsh%40debian.org=pkgconf-rebuild-ftbfs > > -- > Cheers, > Andrej > -- Sebastian Ramacher
