On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:20:47 +0100
root <t...@mirbsd.de> wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
> User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
>
> Please approve package ejabberd for unblocking:
>
> Please consider #660186 release-critical: in many environment,
> JPEG photos are used in Jabber, and in companies, these usually
> come from the LDAP. This bug effectively prevents such environ-
> ments from using ejabberd, or upgrading to the wheezy version.
>
> The patch to fix this is a one-liner, apparently some forgotten
> escape, and does its job well.
>
> I’ve prepared a locally patched package with that and would like
> to ask the Release Team hereby for a pre-upload approval, and
> then either the package maintainers to upload a fixed version to
> sid which can migrate, or I will do an NMU. The patch is attached.
As I've just prepared fixes [2] for the three important bugs including
#660186 and asked Rhonda for upload (see the attachment), I'm now
interested in how exactly to handle this NMU request.
As I gather from the upload history in [1], this NMU did not happen,
and I also think I did not see any messages from the archive software
regarding it. I think I did not see any messages from the release ream
as well.
So what do you propose? I might re-do the commit
30784fb0a9bc9ca75a229406bf5b2bc21df5ffc2 to acknowledge the NMU but if
it has not actually happened, it doesn't feel quite right to me.
1. http://packages.qa.debian.org/e/ejabberd.html
2. http://git.deb.at/w/pkg/ejabberd.git/shortlog/refs/heads/wheezy
--- Begin Message ---
I have prepared and pushed fixes for
#691125 package installation creates /root/.erlang.cookie
#660186 mod_vcard_ldap Broken JPEG Photo in 2.1.10
#698309 broken shared roster group support, only support 30 users max
into the "wheezy" branch at git.deb.at.
The first two are rather trivial, the last one required a bit of
tweaking (but nothing special).
I was only able to verify the first patch (through several install --
`logrotate -f` -- purge) runs. I also checked that application of the
third patch did not break HTTPS (by setting up a TLS-protected web_admin
listener and messing with it using my browser). Can't test the second
(JPEG photos via LDAP) patch myself (it's doable but deploying slapd
and populating it with the user data is an uphill battle -- I did that
once in some now lost sandbox, and I recall that required much
hair-pulling and cursing along the way).
In any case I propose to build 2.1.10-4 from the tip of the
"wheezy" branch from and upload it to unstable so I could prod the
relevant bug reporters asking them to test this upload and ask the
release team for wheezy exclusion.
--- End Message ---
