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

Re: rails update


On 25/06/2020 18:20, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> On 22/06/2020 13:23, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
>> On 22/06/2020 11:56, Utkarsh Gupta wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:11 PM Sylvain Beucler <beuc@beuc.net> wrote:
>>>> Hmm, are you the only active maintainer for rails?
>>> There are 3 maintainers. CC'ed rails@p.d.o.
>>> However, since you have already worked on preparing the fix for
>>> Jessie, it's much easier on your part to do it for Stretch and Buster.
>>> But that's volunteer work :)
>>> If you don't want to work, don't :)
>> For rails@d.p.o's info, I explained at:
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2020/06/msg00063.html
>> that I prepared the jessie (4.1.8) and stretch ( updates at:
>> https://www.beuc.net/tmp/debian-lts/rails/
>> However the buster version ( is affected by a different set of
>> vulnerabilities, is much closer to bullseye (, and apparently
>> the update causes new issues.
>> That's why I think it'd make more sense for the rails maintainers to
>> backport the latest bullseye update.
>> Let me know what you plan to do.
>>>> Which security update broke what, exactly?
>>> The latest security update from to, which contained
>>> fixes for CVE-2020-816{2,4,5,6,7}.
>>> JavaScript bundle generation for Activestorage didn't work w/o that
>>> patch. We had to switch to node-babel7 for that.
>> I updated
>> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/TestSuites/rails
>> accordingly.
>> The stretch updates passes this new test.
>> (Though in this particular case it may have just been due to node-babel
>> changes in unstable since March, e.g. babel7 is pulled through
>> node-regenerator-transform.)
> Status update: jessie and stretch are affected by new important
> CVE-2020-8163.
> buster and above not affected.
> Currently waiting for upstream's feedback on a second regression, then
> I'll prepare an update for jessie & stretch.

https://www.beuc.net/tmp/debian-lts/rails/ is updated.

Upstream showed little care for 4.x and I don't expect further feedback,
so I went ahead and backported:
to fix the regression, including tests.

Rationale at:

Note: redmine/stretch (< 3.4) was not affected by the regression.


Reply to: