-=| 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