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

Bug#893285: marked as done (stretch-pu: package docbook-to-man/1:2.0.0-35+deb9u1)



Your message dated Mon, 2 Apr 2018 15:38:07 +0200
with message-id <20180402133807.eilecaqesyegrjjc@betterave.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#893285: stretch-pu: package docbook-to-man/1:2.0.0-35+deb9u1
has caused the Debian Bug report #893285,
regarding stretch-pu: package docbook-to-man/1:2.0.0-35+deb9u1
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.)


-- 
893285: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=893285
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: docbook-to-man
Version: 1:2.0.0-35
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>

Hi,

docbook-to-man has some nasty undefined behaviour originally filed
as #842635. For example:

  https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/stretch/i386/tigr-glimmer.html

This was fixed in 1:2.0.0-36:

  https://github.com/lamby/pkg-docbook-to-man/commit/2f0659f3f7a5c59e30ed359b0a9daf171053675d

Please update stretch via -pu.


Regards,

-- 
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      lamby@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 02:56:00 +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:

> retitle 893285 stretch-pu: package docbook-to-man/1:2.0.0-35+deb9u1
> reassign 893285 release.debian.org
> severity 893285 normal
> tags 893285 + stretch
> user release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> usertags 893285 pu
> thanks
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like update docbook-to-man in stable to fix an issue with corrupted
> output due to incorrect use of memcpy vs memmove as originally outlined
> in #842635 and #858389
> 
Looks like that has "normal" severity, which sounds about right to me
from the description.  I don't think that reaches the "warrants a stable
update" level.  Please feel free to reopen if I'm missing something.

Cheers,
Julien

--- End Message ---

Reply to: