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

Re: Assignments II (2003/04/03)



> Neil Schemenauer
>      56472 followup: has patch been accepted? is NMU useful?

The maintainer applied my patch, uploaded and closed the bug.

>      80888 followup: work out what to do about this package

This is the dnrd security bug.  I still don't know what to do about it.
I don't have time nor do I want to rewrite a piece of software I don't
use.  The upstream maintainer does not seem to care.  The Debian
maintainer does not have the experience.  The daemon runs under its own
UID in a chroot jail so a cracker would have a tough time doing any
damage.  However, if you are sufficiently paranoid, you would not use
the package.  Should we remove it?  I'm paranoid but I wouldn't use
sendmail or bind either.  Does that mean we should remove them from
Debian?

>     119851 followup: NMU needed; should package be marked as orphaned?

I did an NMU.  It looks like someone is going to take over gap4.  Should
I still orphan it?

>     143852 followup: response from the maintainer needed

I got a reponse from both the maintainer and upstream maintainer.  They
both think my suggestion would fix the bug.  Unfortunately, it looks
like this package is not a priority for the upstream maintainer.  I
guess I should pester them to see if they are planning to do anything.

>     148726 [       ] libsasl-gssapi-heimdal dependency problems
>     151753 [       ] korganizer: Rebuild with libpisock5

No progress on these two yet (sorry, I'm low on spare time).  The
maintainer has a lot of bugs open against the sasl2 package, many of
them over a year old, two of them grave.

>     um-pppd

There is already a bug open for this package.  I attached a patch to fix
the build problem to the bug.

> ttthreeparser

This package is not going into testing because it depends on antlr.
antlr is not getting in because kaffe is not getting in.  There is
already a bug filled against kaffe.  I assume I should not file one
against ttthreeparser.

> amp

Someone already filed a bug against this package.

  Neil



Reply to: