Re: Proposed RC fix for acct
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, Jun 28, 2025 at 04:35:36PM +0100, Andrew Bower wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 09:15:48AM +0100, Andrew Bower wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 09:36:05AM -0300, Carlos Henrique Lima Melara wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 08:11:40AM +0100, Andrew Bower wrote:
> [...]
> > > > I would be happy to try to make another contribution to mop up other
> > > > bugs and issues found by lintian in acct after the trixie release if I
> > > > get a chance.
> > >
> > > That's awesome! If you want to start working already, we can prepare an
> > > upload to experimental with your fixes and after the trixie release we
> > > can send to unstable (I'm not sure how familiar you are with Debian
> > > development lifecycle, but now we are in the freeze [1] to release the
> > > new stable release, trixie, so uploads to unstable should be only
> > > targeted to fix things in trixie).
> [...]
> > I have a few fixes ready and some more I would like to add
>
> I have completed my work refreshing 'acct' for forky now, subject to
> feedback!
>
> The full set of changes I propose is here:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/acct/-/merge_requests/8
Cool, I saw the activity but did not had time to look at it during the
week. I'll try to look tomorrow evening.
>
> The first three commits I think are candidates for including in trixie.
>
> 1) Import a buffer overflow patch applied in Ubuntu (#1108428).
> 2) Update metadata for the above.
> 3) Add autopkgtest
>
> The autopkgtest could reduce the load on the release team if we seek to
> add the Ubuntu patch. I am aware there's a risk that a failing
> autopkgtest makes things worse but I think we could derisk that by
> cycling it through 'experimental' and simply removing the test if
> the pseudo-excuses show it to be necessary and not be in a worse
> position than before the test.
Ok, will read the backlog and probably we can go the proposed way of
experimental -> check test results -> file unblock bug.
Cheers,
Charles
Reply to: