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

Bug#913674: marked as done (release.debian.org: Regression: Recent upgrade of opensc breaks Yubikey NEO support)

Your message dated Thu, 02 Jul 2020 21:01:00 +0100
with message-id <610b56fda617de0e2949a3300597c340a9e9cfcf.camel@adam-barratt.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#913674: Preparing p-u upload
has caused the Debian Bug report #913674,
regarding release.debian.org: Regression: Recent upgrade of opensc breaks Yubikey NEO support
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.)


-- 
913674: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=913674
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: grave
Tags: stretch

A few weeks ago I reported that a security patch in
opensc/0.16.0-3+deb9u1 broke support for Yubkey NEO devices (#910786,
severity serious). Unfortunately, this did not prevent opensc from being
included in the recent stretch point release. What can we do to fix the
package now?

Cheers,
-Hilko

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Tue, 2019-01-08 at 23:42 +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote:
> * Adam D. Barratt:
> 
> > Ah, I suspect there has been some confusion regarding the quoted
> > text -
> > "that" is "a fixed package", not "the package in unstable". The
> > mention
> > of unstable was a general reference to the workflow requirement for
> > issues to be resolved in unstable first, not a specific suggestion
> > to
> > upload the unstable package to stable.
> 
> Ah, I see.
> 
> I think I stated my case about not being able to properly fix the
> patch
> within the 0.16 codebase, so I'm going to open a p-u bug for
> 0.19.1~deb9u1.

That became #918744, which has since been closed (without updating the
package, admittedly, but that's no reason for this bug to remain open).

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: