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

Bug#770799: marked as done (RM: cyassl/2.9.4+dfsg-3 (ROST; NPOASR, security, no r-deps))



Your message dated Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:48:05 +0000
with message-id <5723437342f48582b29425d485efd9f5@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#770799: RM: cyassl/2.9.4+dfsg-3 (ROST; NPOASR, security, no r-deps)
has caused the Debian Bug report #770799,
regarding RM: cyassl/2.9.4+dfsg-3 (ROST; NPOASR, security, no r-deps)
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.)


-- 
770799: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=770799
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: rm

Hi,

Please remove cyassl from jessie. The library has a number of open security
issues affecting the version in jessie, but has no packages actually depending
on it.

While security team encourages packaging of cyassl separately to reduce
embedded code copies, for jessie this has not yet been achieved so we're
better off not shipping this library.


Thanks,
Thijs

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2014-11-24 7:35, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
Please remove cyassl from jessie. The library has a number of open security issues affecting the version in jessie, but has no packages actually depending
on it.

While security team encourages packaging of cyassl separately to reduce
embedded code copies, for jessie this has not yet been achieved so we're
better off not shipping this library.

Removal hint added.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---

Reply to: