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

Bug#702278: marked as done (unblock: busybox/1:1.20.0-8)

Your message dated Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:54:00 +0100
with message-id <1366224840.6483.12.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#702278: busybox upload
has caused the Debian Bug report #702278,
regarding unblock: busybox/1:1.20.0-8
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.)


-- 
702278: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=702278
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: unblock

Hi,
please unblock busybox 1:1.20.0-8. It fixes CVE-2013-1813

(Includes a udeb)

Cheers,
        Moritz

unblock busybox/1:1.20.0-8

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (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/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
user release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
tags 686502 + wheezy-ignore
usertags 686502 + wheezy-can-defer
thanks

On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 09:51 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> (08/04/2013):
> > > We're unlikely to met all the conditions for this bug in d-i or
> > > initramfs during wheezy lifetime, -- _provided_ that some future
> > > _wheeze_ update will not contain such concatenated xz streams
> > > produced by, say, an improved version of dpkg (which utilizes
> > > multiple cores for compression), -- but this is an unlikely
> > > situation.
> 
> Agreed, and unlikely means I'm not going to approve of such a chance
> at this point.

Based on the above, I think it's fair to say the changes aren't going to
make wheezy r0. Maybe we could revisit some (or all) of the fixes for a
point release?

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: