Daniel et al. -
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:32:19AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > I might play around with option 2. There are two strategies
> > that make technical sense:
>
> Why would you do this when there's already a version upstream that fixes
> this? I don't like the idea of having yet another Xpm 'security fix'
> variant out there.
OK, so I was slow finding the proper upstream fix.
Now that I found it within
http://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.8.2/patches/X11R6.8.1-to-X11R6.8.2.patch.gz
I gave it a quick review (it matches my strategy (a)).
So, let me rephrase the question:
Has Matej and someone from the Debian X Strike Force reviewed
and/or started to test the X11R6.8.2 patch to
xc/extras/Xpm/lib/RdFToI.c
xc/extras/Xpm/lib/WrFFrI.c
and maybe
xc/extras/Xpm/lib/XpmI.h
?
- Larry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature