On Wednesday 28 June 2006 22:24, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
http://security.debian.org/pool/updates/main/k/kernel-image-2.6.8-i38
6/ kernel-image-2.6.8-2-386_2.6.8-16sarge1_i386.deb
Size/MD5 checksum: 14058198 fd607b13caf99093ef31071ff7395d6d
This package is actually not new. I installed it
On Saturday 17 December 2005 07:35, curby . wrote:
Within the last hour or so, I've gotten about 130 announcements of
accepted patches/upgrades of packages on debian-changes. Before then,
I'd only usually get a few such announcements per day. Is some
backlog clearing up, did I miss some
On Thursday 27 October 2005 22:30, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
When dealing with Debian matters of a technical nature, yes. When
dealing with matters outside Debian, or of a non-technical nature, I
may decide to not take such an instance. And frankly, as long as it is
a rule of mine,
On Thursday 27 October 2005 23:34, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
To me it is a technical matter, as the changelogs are a tool for a
technical job.
To me, changelogs are primarily a way of informing the user of changes in
a package. Including references to fixed security issues is
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 00:27, Tilman Koschnick wrote:
According to the changelog, this is fixed in firehol 1.231-3; Sarge has
1.231-2. This bug could possibly leave a system without a firewall
activated, so I'm wondering if the bugfix would warrant an upload to
the security archive.
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 00:57, Shane Machon wrote:
Has there been an official announcement on this end of patches/support
date or is it simply: release date + 6 months?
http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/
Release date + 1 year unless a new release happens sooner (which it will
not).
On Wednesday 07 September 2005 19:07, peace bwitchu wrote:
Are the kernel packages in Sarge currently supported
by the security team? I know that support for the
kernel packages in Woody were dropped and you needed
to roll your own for security updates. Is this how it
is going to be in
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 10:34, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 29 August 2005 22:23, Florian Weimer wrote:
I've obtained permission from tbm to quote the message reproduced
below in public. This should make it clear that the intent was to
delegate: Nach [URL] hat
On Monday 29 August 2005 20:13, Florian Weimer wrote:
Martin Michlmayr has made the security team a delegate by this
message:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/05/msg5.html
Huh? I read no formal delegation in that message.
It just states that he talked to some people and
On Monday 29 August 2005 21:40, Florian Weimer wrote:
I see no (as DPL) I appoint or I delegate in that mail.
This is not necessary.
I'm sorry, but I still think you're doing creative reading. There is only
an announcement of the addition of a new member to an existing team.
There is
On Monday 29 August 2005 22:23, Florian Weimer wrote:
I've obtained permission from tbm to quote the message reproduced
below in public. This should make it clear that the intent was to
delegate: Nach [URL] hat debian-admin klar die Authorität --
according to [URL], debian-admin clearly has
On Thursday 11 August 2005 21:24, Martin Schulze wrote:
Package: several
Vulnerability : several
Problem-Type : local and remote
Debian-specific: no
This advisory adds security support for the stable amd64 distribution.
Great job!
Another major step for AMD64.
pgpyG9e9LhvGP.pgp
On Thursday 04 August 2005 00:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What is wrong with volatile? It's for exactly this case.
No it is not. volatile-sloppy [1] may be (if that's implemented).
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg00016.html
pgpQYcm3oGbIO.pgp
Description: PGP
On Thursday 04 August 2005 00:39, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 04 August 2005 00:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
What is wrong with volatile? It's for exactly this case.
No it is not. volatile-sloppy [1] may be (if that's implemented).
I
On Thursday 07 July 2005 15:17, Christina Miller wrote:
Do you know how I can get myself off of this list? Somehow I signed up
under my alias, so I can't just send a message from my email account.
Use the unsubscribe button on this page after filling in the address you
used to subscribe:
On Tuesday 28 June 2005 11:02, martin f krafft wrote:
instead of adding to the security team's tasks, and instead of
writting emails, why don't we spend the time to write some scripts
to do what we're expecting to be done by the security team ??
thanks for the proposal. why did you write
On Monday 27 June 2005 20:39, Marek Olejniczak wrote:
I don't understand the philosophy of Debian security team. It's really
so difficult to push into sarge spamassassin 3.0.4 which is not
vulnerable? This version is in Debian testing and why this version
can't be push into stable?
Seems that
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 20:56, David Stanaway wrote:
The problem I see is that there is no warning that the package no
longer exists, and could potentially have security problems that go
unnoticed even if you check debian security advisories diligently.
If you use dselect or aptitude, such
not extremely
pretty, but does the job.)
Cheers,
Frans Pop
checkdeleted
Description: application/shellscript
pgpIUjWB1shyE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 24 November 2004 16:50, Robert Lemmen wrote:
- was there really no 2.1r1 to 2.1r3? the first point release i can see
there is r4...
Guess no formal announcements for point releases were made back then.
[1] will give you an approximate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
Is there a good reason why I find Woody packages here?
http://security.debian.org/dists/testing/updates/main/binary-i386/Packages
It gave me some problems during a test installation with Debian Installer.
Cheers,
Frans Pop
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 03 May 2004 19:14, LeVA wrote:
Is there a way to figure out what program is using a port. For example I
want to know which process is using port 80. How can I do this?
# info lsof
# lsof -i :port
Cheers,
FJP
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 03 May 2004 19:14, LeVA wrote:
Is there a way to figure out what program is using a port. For example I
want to know which process is using port 80. How can I do this?
# info lsof
# lsof -i :port
Cheers,
FJP
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 26 October 2003 22:12, Laurent Corbes {Caf'} wrote:
see bug #217525
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=217525
it's a kernel bug :/
Not sure about that. I have same kernel (2.4.20) but different procps (2.0.7-8
from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 26 October 2003 22:12, Laurent Corbes {Caf'} wrote:
see bug #217525
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=217525
it's a kernel bug :/
Not sure about that. I have same kernel (2.4.20) but different procps (2.0.7-8
from
readable.)
Hope you can use some of it.
Frans Pop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/moYXgm/Kwh6ICoQRAo8nAKCNKmnIukkLLRHJFQ+VK06uutyAzQCgpwNt
W4IA10ze+srZ8YJDCcGtEL0=
=6DLx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
readable.)
Hope you can use some of it.
Frans Pop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/moYXgm/Kwh6ICoQRAo8nAKCNKmnIukkLLRHJFQ+VK06uutyAzQCgpwNt
W4IA10ze+srZ8YJDCcGtEL0=
=6DLx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry Michelle,
If I try the domain you entered, I get Welcome to Wendy!.
I have also tried most other examples you have given of problems and never yet
been redirected to Verisign.
Obviously there is something very wrong with your browser or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry Michelle,
If I try the domain you entered, I get Welcome to Wendy!.
I have also tried most other examples you have given of problems and never yet
been redirected to Verisign.
Obviously there is something very wrong with your browser or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Same on my boxes. Thanks for pointing out the cause.
I did
sudo chmod 644 `find . -perm 640`
in /usr/share/man and /usr/share/doc/exim to fix the problem.
I guess a new package will be made?
Frans Pop
On Sunday 07 September 2003 14:26, Jeremie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Same on my boxes. Thanks for pointing out the cause.
I did
sudo chmod 644 `find . -perm 640`
in /usr/share/man and /usr/share/doc/exim to fix the problem.
I guess a new package will be made?
Frans Pop
On Sunday 07 September 2003 14:26, Jeremie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
Can anyone explain why the mail below was bounced(?) by murphy.debian.org to
me?
I did not send the original mail, I am not listed anywhere in the original
mail and I am not subscribed to debian-i386-changes (nor have been in the
past).
On Monday 01 September 2003 22:42, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Frans Pop wrote:
Can anyone explain why the mail below was bounced(?) by murphy.debian.org
to me?
I did not send the original mail, I am not listed anywhere in the
original mail and I am not subscribed to debian
On Monday 01 September 2003 22:42, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Frans Pop wrote:
Can anyone explain why the mail below was bounced(?) by murphy.debian.org
to me?
I did not send the original mail, I am not listed anywhere in the
original mail and I am not subscribed to debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
Can anyone explain why the mail below was bounced(?) by murphy.debian.org to
me?
I did not send the original mail, I am not listed anywhere in the original
mail and I am not subscribed to debian-i386-changes (nor have been in the
past).
35 matches
Mail list logo
