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

Bug#839242: marked as done (jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1)

Your message dated Mon, 03 Oct 2016 09:26:46 -0400
with message-id <87oa311s2x.fsf@angela.anarc.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#839242: jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #839242,
regarding jessie-pu: package linkchecker/9.3-1
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.)


-- 
839242: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839242
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: jessie patch
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu

linkchecker, a package to check links in a webpage, suffers from a
serious bug (#839241) which makes it impossible to check any HTTPS
webpage or any page that contains a HTTPS URL.  Although it correctly
checks plaintext URLs, the HTTPS URLs are so common that it makes it
impossible to use it on any site that has any link to an HTTPS site,
or is an HTTPS site itself, which I consider a "grave" bug because it
"makes it unusable by most users".

I have made a NMU to fix the bug in Debian:

https://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linkchecker/news/20160519T192043Z.html

.... and submitted the patch upstream:

https://github.com/wummel/linkchecker/pull/656

Attached is a debdiff between the -1 and -1.1 version. I suggest
uploading the -1.1 version straight to stable since newer releases
were done in stable. I am concerned by a subsequent QA upload that
fixed a related issue, however:

https://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linkchecker/news/20160723T130426Z.html

I am not sure this bugfix applies to jessie, however, as I am using
-1.1 here in jessie without problems.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 8.6
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'proposed-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2016-10-02 18:05:07, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
>
> On Sun, 2016-10-02 at 16:43 -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2016-10-02 12:40:47, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> [..]
>> > At first glance, I'm rather confused by:
>> >
>> > --- linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries      1969-12-31 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
>> > +++ linkchecker-9.3/debian/source/include-binaries      2016-05-19 14:33:11.000000000 -0400
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
>> >
>> > particularly its appearance in an NMU. None of the paths sound like
>> > files that you'd want to include in the source package, and indeed none
>> > of them appear to have been included in the package in unstable; at
>> > least most also appear to be automatically removed by upstream's clean
>> > targets.
>> 
>> Uh. That *is* quite odd - I don't actually know where that is coming
>> from. I agree it is out of scope for a NMU, but considering the poor
>> state of the package (it's orphaned) I hope I can be forgiven,
>> especially since others uploaded new NMUs on top of mine...
>> 
>> Anyways, here's a reduced diff that seems to compile well on my jessie
>> chroot:
>
> Thanks. With the changelog distribution changed to "jessie", please go
> ahead.

I assume you meant "stable", as documented in the developer's reference
and that I have used before.

Done, thanks for the review and followup!

A.
-- 
If it's important for you, you'll find a way.
If it's not, you'll find an excuse.
                        - Unknown

--- End Message ---
Reply to: