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

Re: Proposed update of mapserver for wheezy



On Tue, 2013-09-03 at 22:49 +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> Would you consider the changes for mapserver 6.0.1-4 acceptable for
> upload to wheezy proposed-updates?

Thanks for caring about fixing bugs in stable. For future reference,
it's much easier for us to track such requests if they're filed in the
BTS as an appropriately user-tagged bug (e.g. via "reportbug
release.debian.org").

> It acknowledges the NMUs, includes fixes for bugs in the BTS, and fixes
> available in the Debian GIS VCS that were not uploaded to unstable in
> time for wheezy.

+mapserver (6.0.1-4) unstable; urgency=low

6.0.1-3.2+deb7u1 would be a more conventional version, although -4 would
work so long as there was never an upload to Debian using that version
number. wheezy isn't "unstable", however. :)

+  [Francesco Paolo Lovergine]
+  * Fixed typo that prevented AGG use in debian/rules.
+    (closes: #663875)

What's the status of this bug with regard to the version of mapserver in
testing / unstable? The BTS metadata indicates that it affects that
version and is not resolved there.

+  * Migrated to debhelper level 9 and policy bumped to 3.9.3. 

The former is definitely inappropriate for a stable update; the latter
could be included but isn't particularly relevant.

+  [Bas Couwenberg]
+  * Link executables with -ldl. Thanks Colin Watson for the patch.
+    (closes: #709186)

Unless I'm missing something, the issue this is fixing doesn't actually
occur with wheezy's toolchain; as such, it's not something we'd look at
changing in stable I'm afraid.

+  * Cherry pick fix for strict Content-Type matching from v6.2.1:
+
https://github.com/faegi/mapserver/commit/426193cf5f6b34c97cceef2aca4649c604756cd0

That would be:

++    if(strncmp(request->contenttype, "application/x-www-form-urlencoded", strlen("application/x-www-form-urlencoded")) == 0) {

This will also match "application/x-www-form/urlencoded-badgers", which
I assume wasn't intended. That may or may not be worse than the original
bug though.

Regards,

Adam


Reply to: