I can't find who promoted this package to main; but it is there right
now, and it seems it also was in previous releases. Closing as Fix
Released based on the ack from Seb128 thatit would be subscribed to by
desktop-bugs.
** Changed in: gssdp (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You
It has to answer unicast M-SEARCH. That's in the UPnP spec and
validation test suite.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1799977
Title:
[MIR] gssdp
To manage notifications about this
** Changed in: gssdp (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Ubuntu Security Team (ubuntu-security) => (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1799977
Title:
[MIR] gssdp
To manage notifications
I reviewed gssdp 1.2.0-1 as checked in to eoan. This isn't a full
security audit, but rather a quick gauge of maintainability.
- gsspd is a gobject based library for using SSDP (Simple Service Discovery
Protocol), and is required by rygel.
- gssdp is part of the GNOME project.
- It doesn't see a
This one could do with a quick review from the security team.
** Changed in: gssdp (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Ubuntu Security Team (ubuntu-security)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
** Changed in: gssdp (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Didier Roche (didrocks) => (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1799977
Title:
[MIR] gssdp
To manage notifications about this bug
Sure, the only binary we care about here is 'libgssdp-1.0-3'. We can
promote the documentation if that's standard practice but that's not
needed.
Let's talk about the nitpick tomorrow, I'm not familiar on the
difference between dh_missing and dh_install --fail-missing, so it's
basically about
Thanks! Do you mind listing the exact binary package list which should
then be promoted?
I would have appreciated the simple nitpick to be fixed while you were
fixing the other issues, but as said, not a requirement…
Agreed with you on the autopkgtests. This could have helped if vala were
to
@doc depend & vcs reference have been fixed in 1.0.2-3 which just got
uploaded to Debian (and going to be autosynced to disco)
the tests are not integration ones so unsure they are really useful as
autopkgtest but I'm unsure what are the best/common practices there, I
can add them still if you
* -doc package: I think we should promote it as well in main, if the -dev is
promoted. If so, this dep should be fixed: Depends: lynx | www-browser (first
is lynx, in universe, www-browser is a virtual package not fullfiled?). In
addition, it ships the doc in devhelp format (despite symlink
** Changed in: gssdp (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Didier Roche (didrocks)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1799977
Title:
[MIR] gssdp
To manage notifications about this bug
11 matches
Mail list logo
