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

Bug#609087: marked as done (unblock: subversion/1.6.12dfsg-4)



Your message dated Thu, 06 Jan 2011 06:51:58 +0000
with message-id <1294296718.29309.4343.camel@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#609087: unblock: subversion/1.6.12dfsg-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #609087,
regarding unblock: subversion/1.6.12dfsg-4
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
immediately.)


-- 
609087: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609087
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal

subversion 1.6.12dfsg-4:

- Relax the runtime version check of SQLite.  (As has been noted on
  IRC, a BinNMU on squeeze would be an acceptable workaround.)

- CVE-2010-4539 - ability to crash Apache server child processes.
  I'm not sure if the impact is high enough to warrant a stable update -
  I believe you're only crashing child processes here, not the master
  server process - but Moritz Muehlenhoff requested that this go in,
  and it seems reasonable.  It's also a really trivial patch.

I see a FTBFS on s390, a SIGSEGV in the main testsuite.  I've never
seen a segfault like that before, anywhere, so I hope it's transient.

Peter



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 21:19 -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> - Relax the runtime version check of SQLite.  (As has been noted on
>   IRC, a BinNMU on squeeze would be an acceptable workaround.)
> 
> - CVE-2010-4539 - ability to crash Apache server child processes.
>   I'm not sure if the impact is high enough to warrant a stable update -
>   I believe you're only crashing child processes here, not the master
>   server process - but Moritz Muehlenhoff requested that this go in,
>   and it seems reasonable.  It's also a really trivial patch.

Ack. Unblocked last night, thanks.

> I see a FTBFS on s390, a SIGSEGV in the main testsuite.  I've never
> seen a segfault like that before, anywhere, so I hope it's transient.

Given back, let's see what happens this time.  If it turns out to be a
recurring problem then we can always look again at binNMUs if need be.

Regards,

Adam



--- End Message ---

Reply to: