Re: stable revision? (woody 3.0r2)

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Martin Schulze wrote:

> Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > Is there any plans for a 3.0r2?
>
> http://people.debian.org/~joey/3.0r2/

I read:

   The regulations for stable are quite conservative. The requirements
   for packages to get into stable are:

[...]

   2. The package fixes a critical bug which can lead into data loss,
   data corruption, or an overly broken system, or the package is broken
   or not usable (anymore).

which I think it's the reason my procmail_3.22-5 upload for stable
is currently schedulded to be rejected:

   Not applicable for Debian stable

However, the diff (modulo changelog) between procmail_3.22-4 (the
version currently in woody) and procmail_3.22-5 is the following one:

diff -ru procmail-3.22-4/src/pipes.c procmail-3.22-5/src/pipes.c
--- procmail-3.22-4/src/pipes.c	2003-08-18 14:59:00.000000000 +0200
+++ procmail-3.22-5/src/pipes.c	2003-08-18 14:59:07.000000000 +0200
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@
      makeblock(&temp,Stdfilled);
      tmemmove(temp.p,Stdout,Stdfilled);
      readdyn(&temp,&Stdfilled,Stdfilled+backlen+1);
-     Stdout=realloc(Stdout,&Stdfilled+1);
+     Stdout=realloc(Stdout,Stdfilled+1);
      tmemmove(Stdout,temp.p,Stdfilled+1);
      freeblock(&temp);
      retStdout(Stdout,pwait&&pipw,!backblock);


This patch fixes a bug which may produce data loss and it has a single
line, so I think it is conservative enough and should be accepted.
Is Debian woody really better without this patch than with it?

I think not, so I hope the stable release manager reconsiders about
his policy to accept or reject packages into stable, or just do not
apply it blindly and make exceptions again, like he did in 3.0r1.

[ My apologies to Joey if he considers this message as a duplicate of
  the one I sent to him privately yesterday, but it was the third time
  I tried to contact him about this ].

Thanks.