Bug#1103597: marked as done (unblock: poppler/25.03.0-4)
Your message dated Sun, 20 Apr 2025 08:44:14 +0000
with message-id <E1u6QHe-009nMj-0P@respighi.debian.org>
and subject line unblock poppler
has caused the Debian Bug report #1103597,
regarding unblock: poppler/25.03.0-4
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.)
--
1103597: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1103597
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:poppler
X-Debbugs-Cc: poppler@packages.debian.org
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please allow poppler 25.03.0-4 to migrate faster than 10 days.
[ Reason ]
The only change is the inclusion of a security fix (which Debian
Security has marked no-dsa but would still like to have fixed).
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2025-43903
[ Impact ]
Minor security fix
[ Tests ]
Poppler does not have a test specifically for this security fix. We
currently ignore build test failures for poppler because they depend
on files that are not included in the source tarball. Poppler does
have basic autopkgtests to ensure that things can build against the
different library versions (glib, qt6, etc.) and load a PDF.
[ Risks ]
Poppler is an important widely used library but this is only a minimal
change to the signature verification code.
[ Checklist ]
[X] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
[X] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
[N/A] attach debdiff against the package in testing
Thank you,
Jeremy Bícha
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Unblocked.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: