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

Help on OpenOffice.org security upgrade requested




Hi,

I've read this security message concerning Openoffice.org.
I'm very new to Debian GNU/Linux, and I don't know how to upgrade.
I'm running etch on AMD64 (just installed last week).



The security message it says:


For the testing distribution (etch) these problems have been fixed in
version 2.0.4.dfsg.2-6.



I checked with 'apt-cache show openoffice.org' and somewhere I found
'Version: 2.0.4.dfsg.2-5'.



The security message says furthermore: 

Upgrade Instructions
- --------------------

If you are using the apt-get package manager, use the line for
sources.list as given at the end of this advisory:

apt-get update
        will update the internal database
apt-get upgrade
        will install corrected packages

You may use an automated update by adding the resources from the
footer to the proper configuration.

<Snip>

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For apt-get: deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main
For dpkg-ftp: ftp://security.debian.org/debian-security dists/stable/updates/main
Mailing list: debian-security-announce@lists.debian.org
Package info: `apt-cache show <pkg>' and http://packages.debian.org/<pkg>



 I could not find anything referring to AMD64 or to 2.0.4.dfsg.2-6 in the whole security message.
How do I upgrade my AMD64 2.0.4.dfsg.2-5 version to AMD64 2.0.4.dfsg.2-6?



Here's what my /etc/apt/sources.list says:

deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ etch main
deb-src http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ etch main

deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main

deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib

Is there anything wrong or missing in this sources.list?

Simply doing an apt-get update followed by an apt-get upgrade does not upgrade OpenOffice.org.



Thanks in advance,

Manon Metten.

Reply to: