On 2007-02-22 10:05, Stuart Rowan wrote:
> As mentioned here:
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-6302
>
> So I think it would be worth getting the current etch version into
> sarge-backports?
The etch version changes the entire configuration file layout and
syntax and requires substantial attention by the admin.
But I agree that this should probably be fixed and I wonder whether
a simple change to the regexp wouldn't do.
I am really busy right now. If you could link up with upstream and
figure out a patch against the 0.6 version on bpo, I will upload
your fix immediately. That would be really nice and help me out
a lot.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"being shot is not as bad as i always thought it might be.
as long as you can keep the fear from your mind."
-- special agent dale cooper
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)