Re: Binary NMU requested for mailman in sarge [was: mailman 2.1.5-8sarge3: screwup between security and maintainer upload]
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 02:44:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:21:35AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>>> Stable release team, please react accordingly; you may for example
>>> do a binary sourceless NMU for the architectures that have
>>> -8sarge3 the security update so that they all have -8sarge3 the
>>> maintainer update.
>> I have now heard about what the security problem addressed in
>> -8sarge3 the security update is. It is believed not to be
>> exploitable. I thus now officially request a binary NMU to replace
>> -8sarge3 the security update by -8sarge3 the maintainer update on
>> the arches that have -8sarge3 the security update.
> And which archs are those?
I sent that mail before reading the mail from Martin Zobel-Helas
authorising a -8sarge4 without any changes to force a rebuild (because
that mail was not CCed to me personally). I'm now pursuing that route,
and I'm taking back my binary NMU request.