Hi,
On 30.07.2015 13:46, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
>> I would really appreciate it if somebody could sponsor this upload.
>
> I can sponsor your upload, but looking at the debdiff wrt the existing
> package in wheezy-backports the changelog seems a little messed up:
>
> diff -Nru lxc-1.0.6/debian/changelog lxc-1.0.6/debian/changelog
> --- lxc-1.0.6/debian/changelog 2015-05-19 03:39:38.000000000 -0300
> +++ lxc-1.0.6/debian/changelog 2015-07-25 18:57:08.000000000 -0300
> @@ -1,14 +1,22 @@
> -lxc (1:1.0.6-6~bpo70+2) wheezy-backports; urgency=medium
> +lxc (1:1.0.6-6+deb8u1~bpo70+1) wheezy-backports; urgency=high
>
> - * Fix FTBFS on ia64
> + * Rebuild for wheezy-backports.
> + * Fix FTBFS on ia64.
>
> - -- Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> Tue, 19 May 2015 08:38:44 +0200
> + -- Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:56:21 +0200
>
> -lxc (1:1.0.6-6~bpo70+1) wheezy-backports; urgency=medium
> +lxc (1:1.0.6-6+deb8u1) jessie-security; urgency=high
>
> - * Rebuild for wheezy-backports (no changes).
> + * Non-maintainer upload by the Security Team.
> + * Add 0018-CVE-2015-1331-lxclock-use-run-lxc-lock-rather-than-r.patch.
> + CVE-2015-1331: Directory traversal flaw that allows arbitrary file
> + creation as the root user. (Closes: #793298)
> + * Add 0019-CVE-2015-1334-Don-t-use-the-container-s-proc-during-.patch.
> + CVE-2015-1334: Processes intended to be run inside of confined LXC
> + containers could escape their AppArmor or SELinux confinement.
> + (Closes: #793298)
>
> - -- Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> Sun, 03 May 2015 20:38:41 +0200
> + -- Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:12:27 +0200
>
> lxc (1:1.0.6-6) unstable; urgency=low
>
> I would expect the changelog to retain all previous entries that went in
> the backports for a given suite and _add_ the ones since them.
Ok, maybe I'm just confused about how the changelog thing works for
backports. I though one would need to take the new package from jessie
(in case of wheezy-backports) and just do the same changes that were
done beforehand (which I did) and then add a single entry? I always
thought of debian/changelog as a linear history. You are now telling me
that is wrong, I presume.
So if I understand you correctly, I would have the following order in
debian/changelog?
- 1.0.6-6+deb8u1~bpo70+1
- reads "Rebuild for wheezy-backports.", ia64 fix is
not mentioned again
- 1.0.6-6+deb8u1
- security update changelog entry by Salvatore Bonaccorso
- 1.0.6-6~bpo70+2
- "Fix FTBFS on ia64."
- 1.0.6-6~bpo70+1
- "Rebuild for wheezy-backports."
- 1.0.6-6
- the changelog entry that was part of Jessie
- ... all the rest
Is that correct? Or should I mention the ia64 fix again in the first
changelog entry?
Once you clarify this, I'll reupload to mentors.
Thanks in advance and sorry for not understanding this properly.
Regards,
Christian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature