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

[Pkg-security-team] Maintenance of aircrack-ng

On 09/09/16 23:26, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi,
>> Where the last patch comes from?
>> 12013f4 Imported Debian patch 1:1.2-0~rc4-1
>> That don't seems to come from a released version in Debian
> yes, it is the work ongoing on pkg-security repo, added on top of it
> (I was too lazy to import it without gbp, so the message is misleading, probably a rewording/rebasing
> would be nice there)
> G.

I see..

Some comments below:

1) This don't looks ok to me:
    - 000-Airmon_needs_bash.diff: Drop because upstream replaced
airmon-ng with airmon-zc (closes: #772193).

Mainly because airmon-ng is still shipped on the package. And also
because upstream didn't replaced one with the other. They ship both.

So, I'm fine with shipping airmon-zc, but not with removing airmon-ng or
making it worse, If upstream removes airmon-ng then fine, but meanwhile
that don't happens let's ship it with the /bin/bash shebang.


 Priority: optional
-Maintainer: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez at igalia.com>
+Maintainer: Debian Security Tools Packaging Team
<pkg-security-team at lists.alioth.debian.org>
+Uploaders: Samuel Henrique <samueloph at gmail.com>
 Homepage: http://www.aircrack-ng.org/

Please add me also as uploader.


  iw [linux-any],
  wireless-tools [linux-any],
+ ethtool,
+ usbutils,

Are this two packages a dependency of some of the tools shipped??
If they are not, I think is better to downgrade them to recommends.

Other than this, the rest looks fine to me.

I won't have time to check this until the next month or more.
So, I'm fine if you want to upload this new version. I can try to
follow-up later.

Thanks for giving some love to aircrack-ng.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 883 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-security-team/attachments/20160909/233af488/attachment.sig>

Reply to: