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

Re: Binary NMU requested for mailman in sarge [was: mailman 2.1.5-8sarge3: screwup between security and maintainer upload]

On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:05:48PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> 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.

I have nevertheless checked it out, and only i386 has -8sarge3 the
security update, all others have -8sarge3 the maintainer
update. Depending on the evolution of the fate of -8sarge4, you may
want to do a binary NMU after all or not.

Best Regards,


Reply to: