Your message dated Fri, 4 Jan 2013 16:03:36 +0100 with message-id <20130104150336.GA21187@spike.0x539.de> and subject line Re: Bug#669213: bind9: new upstream release: 9.9 has caused the Debian Bug report #693385, regarding unblock: bind9/1:9.8.4.dfsg-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 immediately.) -- 693385: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693385 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: unblock: bind9/1:9.8.4.dfsg-1
- From: Matthew Grant <matthewgrant5@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:22:07 +1300
- Message-id: <20121115222207.9883.29621.reportbug@shalom-ext.internal.anathoth.net>
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package bind9 1) a rebase bind9 for wheezy to 9.8.4 will make security maintenance a lot easier going forward. To properly fix bugs - some security and basic functionaliy, upstream have changed data structure code, and some flags. Makes patching tricky (see below). 2) Bug #690569 DNS wildcards fail to resolve with DNSsec enabled - a basic DNS protocol bug. To get DNS resolving going have to turn off DNSSEC validation - a bit of a thinko. Found there were too many changes to 9.8.x ISC upstream since 9.8.1-P3 for me to consider patching it reliably. ISC don't give access to their VCS. Note: also fixes CVE-2012-4244 Note: libdns81, libisc83 are updated to libdns88 and libisc84 in upstream. Thank you for looking into this. I really appreciate your time and dedication to Debian. Best Regards, Matthew Grant debdiff: File lists identical (after any substitutions) Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format) ------------------------------------------------ Depends: libbind9-80 (= [-1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4.3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg-1),+} libc6 (>= 2.4), libcap2 (>= 2.10), [-libdns81-] {+libdns88+} (= [-1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4.3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg-1),+} libgssapi-krb5-2 (>= 1.6.dfsg.2), [-libisc83-] {+libisc84+} (= [-1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4.3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg-1),+} libisccc80 (= [-1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4.3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg-1),+} libisccfg82 (= [-1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4.3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg-1),+} liblwres80 (= [-1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4.3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg-1),+} libssl1.0.0 (>= 1.0.0), {+libxml2 (>= 2.7.4),+} debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, netbase, adduser, lsb-base (>= 3.2-14), bind9utils (= [-1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4.3),-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg-1),+} net-tools Installed-Size: [-816-] {+940+} Version: [-1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4.3-] {+1:9.8.4.dfsg-1+} unblock bind9/1:9.8.4.dfsg-1 -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_NZ.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_NZ.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: LaMont Jones <lamont@mmjgroup.com>, "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>, LaMont Jones <lamont@debian.org>, Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian@karotte.org>, 669213@bugs.debian.org, ondrej@sury.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org
- Cc: 693385-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#669213: bind9: new upstream release: 9.9
- From: Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 16:03:36 +0100
- Message-id: <20130104150336.GA21187@spike.0x539.de>
- In-reply-to: <20121029203013.GA30198@mix.mmjgroup.com>
- References: <20121029141054.GA20921@danton.fire-world.de> <20121029144804.GA25096@mix.mmjgroup.com> <20121029164550.GA16811@waldi.eu.org> <6bfe1fe0102c318fa56816cf0211ca57@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org> <20121029203013.GA30198@mix.mmjgroup.com>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:30:13PM -0600, LaMont Jones wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:22:10PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Indeed. In any case, were the new version to be accepted in to the > > release then the appropriate route would be via unstable, not direct > > to t-p-u. > Works for me. I'll toss 9.8.4 into sid. As for getting it into wheezy, > it'll make the support life easier for the inevitable security fixes that > will follow. There are probably other reasons. I unblocked it now. I hope that I don't regret that. I'm unhappy about how this went, but I think we should have the fixes 9.8.4 provides in wheezy. Kind regards Philipp KernAttachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---