-=| Norbert Tretkowski, Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:58:13PM +0100 |=- > Am Donnerstag, den 17.01.2008, 22:36 +0200 schrieb Damyan Ivanov: > > So, would this backport be accepted? Should I backport the testing > > version instead (2.0.3.12981.ds1-1), despite the fact that the version > > from unstable contains important fixes (#448616, #454466)? > > The mentioned bugs are not security related, hence please backport the > package from testing. OK, -4 migrated to testing, but now there is another security-related bug fixed in unstable. Would it be OK if I upload this to bpo? The full changelog is: firebird2.0 (2.0.3.12981.ds1-5) unstable; urgency=low . * Resync port-mipsel.patch from upstream and enable it. Closes: #460220 * port-mips.patch synced with upstream and enabled. Closes: #417409 * Update French debconf translation. Thanks to Christian Perier. Closes: #456393 * Updated debconf translations. Unfuzzied "Password for firebird * ${VER}" * Updated Norwegian debconf translations by Bjørn Steensrud. Closes: #461337 * Updated Vietnamese debconf translation by Clytie Siddall. Closes: #461418 * Updated Romanian debconf translation from Eddy Petrișor. (Closes: #461624) * Updated German debconf translation by Holger Wansing. (Closes: #462300) * add cvs_security-long-username_CVE-2008-0467_#463596.patch (Closes: #463596 -- CVE-2008-0467 remote buffer overflow leading to arbitrary code execution) The patches that add the new ports are isolated and do not touch the already built ports. I mis-uploaded this with urgency=low so I mailed to -release for a bump. If everything goes well, -5 should migrate to testing in a couple of days. If you allow this, it would save me one upload. Not a big deal, I guess :) -- dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature