Bug#596300: unblock: libunistring/0.9.3-3

). -- Andreas Rottmann Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:22:45 +0200 libunistring (0.9.3-2) unstable; urgency=low * Work around toolchain issue on mipsen by building with -mplt there (closes: #595875, thanks to Julien BLACHE). -- Andreas Rottmann Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:45:46 +0200 libunistring (0.9.3-1

serveez: proposed update for stable and oldstable

ebian/changelog --- serveez-0.1.5/debian/changelog +++ serveez-0.1.5/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +serveez (0.1.5-2+etch1) oldstable; urgency=high + + * Applied patch to fix HTTP remote buffer overflow (closes: #540657). + + -- Andreas Rottmann Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:18:33 +0200 + serveez (0.1.5-2) un

Re: Lastest G-Wrap for Sarge

right. There are no file conflicts between libgwrapguile-dev 1.3.4-13 and libgwrap-runtime0-dev 1.9.5-2; that conflict was apparently a packaging artefact. Sorry for bothering you. Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/

Lastest G-Wrap for Sarge

needed for safe upgrades, since libgwrapguile1 used to contain g-wrap-config. -- Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 17 May 2005 21:25:50 +0200 g-wrap (1.9.6-1) unstable; urgency=high * New upstream version. This nevertheless means no real changes against 1.9.5-2, since we a

gwrapguile: Question about suitability of changes for sarge

r no impact (besides the one fixing #308499), but fix packaging issues. So my question is: would the above be suitable to go into sarge, or should I prepare an upload that just fixes #308499? Thanks, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROT

gwrapguile: Question about suitability of changes for sarge

kaging issues. So my question is: would the above be suitable to go into sarge, or should I prepare an upload that just fixes #308499? Thanks, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/g