Re: Bug#971560: libsane-common 1.0.25-4.1+deb9u1 Stretch security update missing lots of files
Hi,
Thanks for testing, I'm uploading to stretch-security as we speak.
Cheers!
Sylvain
On 07/10/2020 01:16, Ivan Baldo wrote:
> Hello.
> "¡Lo prometido es deuda!" as we say in Uruguay (what is promised is a debt).
> Tested your packages and now I can see correctly all the scanners,
> local and networked ones!
> So everything looks good to push those to Debian Stretch.
> Thanks a lot for doing all this!
> Greetings from another Allegro user&contributor ;-)
>
> El sáb., 3 de oct. de 2020 a la(s) 13:53, Sylvain Beucler
> (beuc@beuc.net) escribió:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The package is in this state since Aug 17, I think we can afford to wait
>> a few more days for testing.
>> So yes, please do test on Tuesday.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Sylvain
>>
>> On 03/10/2020 00:41, Ivan Baldo wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>> The soonest I could try to check, is this Tuesday 6th 19:00 -0300, sorry.
>>> Let me know if that's useful or too late.
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> El vie., 2 de oct. de 2020 a la(s) 10:22, Sylvain Beucler
>>> (beuc@beuc.net) escribió:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 02/10/2020 13:51, Ivan Baldo wrote:
>>>>> El vie., 2 de oct. de 2020 a la(s) 06:48, Sylvain Beucler
>>>>> (beuc@beuc.net) escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> El jue., 1 de oct. de 2020 a la(s) 19:32, Sylvain Beucler
>>>>>>> (beuc@beuc.net) escribió:
>>>>>>>> This could be due to a bug when building the 'all' and 'amd64' packages
>>>>>>>> separately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can reproduce the 2 debdiff-s with 'debuild -A' and 'debuild -B'
>>>>>> respectively.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm currently backporting fixes from 1.0.27-1~experimental3 to fix the
>>>>>> issue, and updating our procedures to test this case in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great, thanks a lot!!!
>>>>
>>>> I prepared a new package at:
>>>> https://www.beuc.net/tmp/debian-lts/sane-backends/
>>>> that I plan to upload as a regression fix.
>>>>
>>>> (Note: sane-dll is now consistently removed, as it previously evaded
>>>> deletion only in amd64, see #971592.)
>>>>
>>>> Can you test it?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Sylvain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Reply to: