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

Bug#598655: marked as done (unblock: otrs2/2.4.8+dfsg1-1)

Your message dated Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:14:02 +0200
with message-id <4CB97AEA.1030103@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#598655: unblock: otrs2/2.4.8+dfsg1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #598655,
regarding unblock: otrs2/2.4.8+dfsg1-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

598655: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=598655
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception

Please unblock package otrs2

It fixes some security relevant bugs and many other upstream bugs, no new
features or something like that.

The package already has been aged and the CVE ids it fixes are CVE-2010-2080
and CVE-2010-3476, they are not mentioned in the changelog, because I have uploaded
the package before I have noticed the cve id/it gets some.

The debdiff is bloated, because of a little fault of upstream, so please use the
patches from:

It is still not the smallest diff, but as you can see in
it fixes *many* bugs.

unblock otrs2/2.4.8+dfsg1-1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (200, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.35-trunk-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 10/16/2010 10:00 AM, Patrick Matthäi wrote:
> Am 16.10.2010 11:51, schrieb Luk Claes:
>>>> Why is fckeditor included in the package? What changes are there in the
>>>> code base of fckeditor and is that still worth not using the fckeditor
>>>> already in the archive?
>>> Yeah that is another building site :/ I already tried to port otrs to
>>> the fckeditor version of Debian, but without success:
>> http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/o/otrs2/current/changelog#versionversion2.4.5-4
>>> I also patched out libjs-yui from otrs a few weeks ago with the
>>> consequence, that the dashboard statistics are not useable anymore.. And
>>> breaking the editor (as you can think a quite important feature) again
>>> before we release - I think this would be a bad idea.
>> Right, though knowing what the diff is between the packaged fsckeditor
>> and the one included in the otrs2 sources is the first (and currently
>> only) step I want you to take. I want to know what changes there are in
>> the diff to assess whether it's easy to support security wise or when
>> there are critical issues with it or not.
> If I do not have overseen anything, then the changes to the fsckeditor
> eq zero.
> Upstream just tried to update fsckeditor to the latest version for
> 2.4.8, but they have encountered many issues with IE and chrome (if I
> remember correctly), they reimported the old version (I have just
> checked in the past this version, no CVE open for this one) and by doing
> this, whitespaces/EOL have been fucked up, that's why the diff is so
> bloated and you need -b for diff :)
>> After the release it would still be a good idea to try to use the
>> packaged fsckeditor. That might mean it's best to have upstream's
>> fsckeditor or otrs2 change so they are more compatible and don't need 2
>> versions of (about) the same code...
> I fully agree with you. But I think it is a bit late to experiment now
> with it :x

Right, though we should look into it after the release.

>> But as said above, knowing what changes there are made by otrs2 upstream
>> to fsckeditor is the first step. Please do show us that diff, TIA.
> Do you mean code changes by upstream to the embedded fsckeditor itself?
> There shouldn't be any code changes.

Ok, unblocked.



--- End Message ---

Reply to: