[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: firebird2.0: somewhat unusual backport

-=| 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 (, 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 ( unstable; urgency=low
   * Resync port-mipsel.patch from upstream and enable it. Closes:
   * 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:
   * Updated Vietnamese debconf translation by Clytie Siddall. Closes:
   * Updated Romanian debconf translation from Eddy Petrișor. (Closes:
   * Updated German debconf translation by Holger Wansing. (Closes:
   * 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

Reply to: