Package: ifupdown2
Version: 3.0.0-1.1
Severity: grave
Tags: ipv6
Justification: renders package unusable
Dear Maintainer,
* What led up to the situation? The upgrade to python3.12 which replaced
"readfp" with "read_file)
* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or ineffect
On 22 March 2011 21:23, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:57:17 +1100, david b wrote:
>
>> Package: mutt
>> Version: 1.5.20-9+squeeze1
>> Severity: grave
>> Tags: security
>> Justification: user security hole
>>
>> The gnutls implementation of ssl found in mutt, in mutt_ssl_gnutls
That specific grep has no results -->
(for the 2nd). However, for the 3rd the results are listed below:
/var/log/dpkg.log.1:2010-12-03 23:55:11 status triggers-pending
python-central 0.6.16+nmu1
/var/log/dpkg.log.1:2010-12-03 23:55:11 trigproc python-central
0.6.16+nmu1 0.6.16+nmu1
/var/log/dpkg.l
well it was 1. reportlab and 2. bzr (gtk).
I am not sure on the exact packages - isn't there an easier way to
simply check for every python package (available).
ii python-central 0.6.16+nmu1
register and build utility for Python
packages
Ok sure - the bug isn't so critical really and really what happens is
that when upgrading there are those damn broken symlinks which should
be cleaned up / ignored.
It would appear that in my case several of the python packages I had
installed but not --purged (in removal) resulted in their symlin
On 28 December 2010 04:32, David Bremner wrote:
>
> In your first message, you say 2.6.6-6.
>
> In your second message, there is output showing 2.6.6-3+squeeze4
>
> Was the bug actually reported on the machine where the problem occurs?
Clearly it is 2.6.6-3+squeeze4 - sorry for any confusion.
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 22 not upgraded.
8 not fully installed or removed.
After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used.
Setting up python (2.6.6-3+squeeze4) ...
Linking and byte-compiling packages for runtime python
Never-mind, there has already been a potential patch emailed in that
thread (that Soren linked to).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Um, well I could see if they would accept a patch I could make up soon...
The problem is / was they closed the bug saying it was a python issue,
where they didnt' even attempt to ensure that a https connection would
be secured, through wrapping it in ssl, iirc.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia
On 8 December 2010 18:39, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi dave!
>
> * dave b [101202 05:58]:
>
>> Here have a patch!
>> This obviously will break connecting to hosts which use a self-signed
>> certificate.
>> Perhaps some one else can fix this when they
-- Forwarded message --
From: dave b
Date: 1 December 2010 13:59
Subject: Re: Due offlineimap absence of certificate validation issue
-- Debian BTS#603450
To: John Goerzen
Cc: Jan Lieskovsky , Christoph Höger
Here have a patch!
This obviously will break connecting to hosts
> FWIW, this is a limitation documented on the homepage since 2007:
> https://github.com/jgoerzen/offlineimap/wiki
Erh No ... I added that. I didn't see on the homepage erh...?
Also my bug report here links to the 2007 thread post already...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@l
I wish debian let me edit bugs like ubuntu does!
(offlineimap: fails check the remote
servers ssl certificate is valid)
should be
(offlineimap: fails *to* check the remote
server's ssl certificate is valid)
s/servers/server's/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debia
13 matches
Mail list logo
