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)