On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 20:44 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
>
> > Your new GCC builds binaries such as libgcc1 and libstdc++6. That is
> > going to affect nearly all the archive at runtime, and I wonder if
> > it's the right approach. We introduced GCC 4.8 in wheezy, named
On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 13:37 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 05:04:03PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >
> > Your new GCC builds binaries such as libgcc1 and libstdc++6. That is going
> > to
> > affect nearly all the archive at runtime, and I wonder if it's the r
On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 07:48 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
[...]
> That said, I did notice a difference between the built packages on
> jessie and wheezy. Specifically, none of the lib64, libn32,
> and libx32 packages were built on wheezy. I expected the libx32
> packages to be missing, but I was
* Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
> Your new GCC builds binaries such as libgcc1 and libstdc++6. That is
> going to affect nearly all the archive at runtime, and I wonder if
> it's the right approach. We introduced GCC 4.8 in wheezy, named
> gcc-mozilla (a bad name I know) which didn't build these librari
Hi Ola,
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
The two CVEs are still reported as unfixed however. I just checked a minute
ago.
Please check by running the triage script yourself to see it.
I did:
debian@devel:~/debian-security/security-tracker$ bin/lts-cve-triage.py
--skip-dla-needed --ex
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 05:04:03PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>
> Your new GCC builds binaries such as libgcc1 and libstdc++6. That is going to
> affect nearly all the archive at runtime, and I wonder if it's the right
> approach. We introduced GCC 4.8 in wheezy, named gcc-mozilla (a bad
Hi Thorsten
Thank you. I can now see that the package is uploaded properly. Good.
The two CVEs are still reported as unfixed however. I just checked a minute
ago.
Please check by running the triage script yourself to see it.
// Ola
On 1 April 2018 at 19:32, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Hi Ola,
Hi Ola,
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
I have not seen an email about that this package has been accepted by the
FTP archieve, neither can I find the fixed version in the archives. Can you
please check what went wrong?
oops, I didn't notice that my internet connection broke during th
On 01/04/18 13:48, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:30:28AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>
>> I released Linux 3.2.101 today with a backport of the retpoline
>> changes, and have rebased that branch onto it. The new orig tarball is
>> at https://people.debian.org/~benh/linux_
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 07:48:55AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> At this point I feel like the packages are ready for upload, but it
> seems prudent to first wait for confirmation that the kernel build on
> wheezy works with this backported gcc. Once I receive that confirmation,
> I will pr
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 01:53:44PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 07:48:55AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > Additionally, when I checked the PTS for information on the recent jessie
> > upload it
> > was a binary upload built for amd64.
>
> Source uploads to the
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 07:48:55AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Additionally, when I checked the PTS for information on the recent jessie
> upload it
> was a binary upload built for amd64.
Source uploads to the security archive are only possible from stretch onwards.
Cheers,
Moritz
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:30:28AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> I released Linux 3.2.101 today with a backport of the retpoline
> changes, and have rebased that branch onto it. The new orig tarball is
> at https://people.debian.org/~benh/linux_3.2.101.orig.tar.xz
>
> I was able to build this
Hi Thorsten
I have not seen an email about that this package has been accepted by the
FTP archieve, neither can I find the fixed version in the archives. Can you
please check what went wrong?
In addition I think something have went wrong in the security tracker
database because the two CVEs are l
14 matches
Mail list logo