The following bug reports *must* be fixed before the current frozen Debian
distribution can progress further in its development cycle. Reminders have
been sent to the maintainers of these packages but some of the packages with
older bugs could probably use some assistance.
Package Name Bug #
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 11:00:48AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> All is fair in love and war.
love, war, and the bug tracking system...
--
"There are 3 things to remember about being a Starship Captain:
Keep your shirt tucked in, go down with the ship, and never,
ever
On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 03:06:35AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> eterm 33558 [SECURITY] Trivial root exploit with eterm [0]
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Almeida))
a) only applicable to potato
b) fixed in incoming, should be installed today
> > defrag32731 defrag: e2dump quits with
> > check_block_location:6678674146834 [16] (Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> I thought that the bug submitter and the package maintainer have
> agreed to remove this package from slink and potato and place it
> into experimental.
Perhap
> mtools23923 mtools: Syntax error at line 3 column 0 in file
> /etc/mtools.conf: unrecognized keyword [237] (Mark Eichin <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>)
Closed by 3.9.1-2, in Incoming.
Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
> > automake 32404 automake upgrade is not backwards compatible [0]
> > (Kevin Dalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> I wonder why this bug isn't mentioned in Wicherts list.
Someone told me it's only important for potato
> > bigloo32927 bigloo s
Brian White wrote:
> The following bug reports *must* be fixed before the current frozen Debian
> distribution can progress further in its development cycle. Reminders have
> been sent to the maintainers of these packages but some of the packages with
> older bugs could probably use some assistanc
The following bug reports *must* be fixed before the current frozen Debian
distribution can progress further in its development cycle. Reminders have
been sent to the maintainers of these packages but some of the packages with
older bugs could probably use some assistance.
Package Name Bug #
Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> jdk{-dev,}_1.1.7v1a-2 should fix this but I have reports of the
> symlinks not being correctly recognised byt the preinst scripts
> (although I'm unable to reproduce the problem). As you say
> purge/reinstall does fix this, so I'm not willing to demand
> "Stephane" == Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephane> On Friday 12 February 1999, at 15 h 54, the keyboard of
Stephane> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > jdk1.1 32548 Java doesn't work at all for me on slink [13] (=
>> Stephen Zander <[EMAIL P
On Friday 12 February 1999, at 15 h 54, the keyboard of Wichert Akkerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > jdk1.132548 Java doesn't work at all for me on slink [13] (=
> Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> I vaguely remember someone fixing this?
I don't find it really fixed (it i
Here we go with my usual comments. All from memory this time so there
are probably some mistakes.
Previously Brian White wrote:
> defrag32731 defrag: e2dump quits with
> check_block_location:6678674146834 [9] (Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Can we remove this package? The maintai
On Fri, Feb 12, 1999 at 03:06:47 -0500, Brian White wrote:
> libpam0g-util 33238 libpam0g-util: bogus cracklib2 dependency. [0]
> (Debian QA Group )
This is fixed in pam_0.65-0.9 which is currently in Incoming.
Ray
--
LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
The following bug reports *must* be fixed before the current frozen Debian
distribution can progress further in its development cycle. Reminders have
been sent to the maintainers of these packages but some of the packages with
older bugs could probably use some assistance.
Package Name Bug #
On Thursday 4 February 1999, at 21 h 32, the keyboard of Sven Rudolph
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Things are different. The machine is owned by and runs at Technical
> University of Dresden. As does {ftp,www}.de.debian.org .
>
> We cannot give accounts to other people.
OK, I understand your po
The following bug reports *must* be fixed before the current frozen Debian
distribution can progress further in its development cycle. Reminders have
been sent to the maintainers of these packages but some of the packages with
older bugs could probably use some assistance.
Package Name Bug #
On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:32:55PM +0100, Sven Rudolph wrote:
>
> > Heiko Schlittermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is the current maintainer and
> > it is his machine.
>
> Things are different. The machine is owned by and runs at Technical
> University of Dresden. As does {ftp,www}.de.debian.org .
> We
On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:32:55PM +0100, Sven Rudolph wrote:
>
> Things are different. The machine is owned by and runs at Technical
> University of Dresden. As does {ftp,www}.de.debian.org .
>
> We cannot give accounts to other people.
>
Something funny has been going on with email around her
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Heiko Schlittermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is the current maintainer and it is
> his
> machine.
Things are different. The machine is owned by and runs at Technical
University of Dresden. As does {ftp,www}.de.debian.org .
We cannot give accounts to
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 10:23:50AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > > It is but I'm afraid the bugs have not been closed. Heiko seems really
> > > overloaded (and does not reply a lot even on other subjects) so an
> > > help may be welcome.
> >
> > I'd be prepared to help, and I'm not in the
On Monday 1 February 1999, at 18 h 46, the keyboard of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Julian Gilbey) wrote:
> > It is but I'm afraid the bugs have not been closed. Heiko seems really
> > overloaded (and does not reply a lot even on other subjects) so an
> > help may be welcome.
>
> I'd be prepared to help,
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 06:46:49PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > nonus.debian.org 23780 nonus.debian.org: libssl-dev is obsolete [220]
> > > > (Heiko Schlittermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> > ...
> > > Will non-us ever be fixed?
> >
> > It is but I'm afraid the bugs have not been closed. Hei
> > > nonus.debian.org 23780 nonus.debian.org: libssl-dev is obsolete [220]
> > > (Heiko Schlittermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> ...
> > Will non-us ever be fixed?
>
> It is but I'm afraid the bugs have not been closed. Heiko seems really
> overloaded (and does not reply a lot even on other subje
> > Hmmm... If things were installed by hand ("dpkg --install dpkglib...")
> > or if install were to fail between the two packages, then you could have
> > a problem where the install tool doesn't function, right?
>
> Right. But since libdpkg is still a part of the dpkg package we
> shouldn't nee
On Sunday 31 January 1999, at 0 h 48, the keyboard of Michael Stone
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > boot-floppies 32269 partion harddisk fails if WIN95_EXTENDED present
> > [0] (Enrique Zanardi )
>
> The report log is a little unclear. It looks like there is a version of cfdisk
> that work
Previously Brian White wrote:
> Hmmm... If things were installed by hand ("dpkg --install dpkglib...")
> or if install were to fail between the two packages, then you could have
> a problem where the install tool doesn't function, right?
Right. But since libdpkg is still a part of the dpkg packag
Previously Jonel Rienton wrote:
> Slink's latest lprng is broken, it's give me a problem about permission or
> something'.
Vincent already uploaded a fix for that.
Wichert.
--
==
This combination of bytes forms a messa
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 12:05:27PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > > general 28850 gettext: security problem when used in setuid
> > > > programs [0] (debian-devel@lists.debian.org)
> > >
> > > Everyone who has a package with a setuid
Joey Hess wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > general 28850 gettext: security problem when used in setuid
> > > programs [0] (debian-devel@lists.debian.org)
> >
> > Everyone who has a package with a setuid program or something that runs
> > as root should check if it uses gettext,
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > general 28850 gettext: security problem when used in setuid
> > programs [0] (debian-devel@lists.debian.org)
>
> Everyone who has a package with a setuid program or something that runs
> as root should check if it uses gettext, and if so recompile it with
>
Slink's latest lprng is broken, it's give me a problem about permission or
something'.
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 10:10:25PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> I understand. My point, however, was that anyone who exports those things
> on purpose could just as easily copy the file, ftp it, email it, or
> whatever. Plugging a whole in the side of a boat doesn't help when the
> boat has no bot
> > > Previously Brian White wrote:
> > > > apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files
> > > > [0] (Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> > >
> > > We should just force SymLinksIfOwnerMatch for /home to solve this.
> >
> > You know, I don't see this as "grave". It mea
> > You know, I don't see this as "grave". It means that a user can
> > effectively "export to the world" any file readable by www-data. In
> > general, this means only things that can be read by public. So,
> > the user can't intentionally export anything that he/she couldn't already
> > do by
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 02:20:00PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> > Previously Brian White wrote:
> > > apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files
> > > [0] (Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> >
> > We should just force SymLinksIfOwnerMatch for /home to solve this.
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote on 31.01.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 29360: point 1) is an issue for the release notes; I can't retroactively
> patch an old prerm;
You could, but it would be fairly ugly, and I'm not sure it's worth it.
Startegy: pre-depend on a package that does the
Previously Brian White wrote:
> You know, I don't see this as "grave". It means that a user can
> effectively "export to the world" any file readable by www-data. In
> general, this means only things that can be read by public. So,
> the user can't intentionally export anything that he/she could
> Previously Brian White wrote:
> > apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
> > (Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> We should just force SymLinksIfOwnerMatch for /home to solve this.
You know, I don't see this as "grave". It means that a user can
effecti
>> "MD" == Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MD> I need someone to confirm for me that the new sysutils that I put
MD> in potato will work with 2.0.X kernels. I don't have one to test
MD> with---my only non-production system can't do 2.0.X because of
MD> driver issues.
It does for
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > sysutils 29392 oldversion procinfo in sysutils is broken [76]
> > (Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> Is there a reason not to put the new version in?
I need someone to confirm for me that the new sysutils that I put in
potato w
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 10:54:20AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > xbase 30852 X packages do not upgrade automatically due to
> > > name change. [41] (Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> > > xdm 29360 xdm: Stopped X without warning/asking [77]
> > > (Branden Ro
All right, here's the revised list (removing anything that someone confirmed
as almost done.)
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
> > (Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> There's a suggested fix in the bug
Here we go again :)
Previously Brian White wrote:
> apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
> (Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
We should just force SymLinksIfOwnerMatch for /home to solve this.
> autoconf 32391 Autoconf patches for slink [0] (
Michael Stone wrote:
> > chameleon 32522 chameleon in slink depends on too-new libs [0]
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean E. Perry))
>
> Looks like it just needs a recompile against the right libs; or does it not
> work against the older glib?
The (former) maintainer just did a new upload t
Well, let's see what's holding up slink. :)
> apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
> (Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
There's a suggested fix in the bug report. Is it problematic?
> autoconf 32391 Autoconf patches for slink [0] (Ben Pfaff <[
The following bug reports *must* be fixed before the current frozen Debian
distribution can progress further in its development cycle. Reminders have
been sent to the maintainers of these packages but some of the packages with
older bugs could probably use some assistance.
Package Name Bug #
The following bug reports *must* be fixed before the current frozen Debian
distribution can progress further in its development cycle. Reminders have
been sent to the maintainers of these packages but some of the packages with
older bugs could probably use some assistance.
Package Name Bug #
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Brian White wrote:
> Alternatively, the package can be reverted to the version in the previous
> release. If this is done, _don't_ close the bug but rather downgrade the
> severity of the bug to "normal".
What mechanism ensures that the severity is restored after Slink is
re
On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 03:06:36AM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> The following bug reports *must* be fixed before the current frozen Debian
> distribution can progress further in its development cycle. Reminders have
> been sent to the maintainers of these packages but some of the packages with
> ol
The following bug reports *must* be fixed before the current frozen Debian
distribution can progress further in its development cycle. Reminders have
been sent to the maintainers of these packages but some of the packages with
older bugs could probably use some assistance.
Package Name Bug #
50 matches
Mail list logo