Re: Bug#577141: A little update

2010-07-27 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 12:04 -0700, Jack Bates wrote: > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 10:21 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > [...] reading the bug report and looking at the > > upstream tracker indicates that the fix required for the bug is three > > lines long - > > http://issues.outoforder.cc/file_downlo

Re: Bug#577141: A little update

2010-07-27 Thread Jack Bates
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 10:21 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Fri, July 23, 2010 00:23, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:58:10 -0700, Jack Bates wrote: > > > >> Hi, to address bug #577141 in lenny, would you consider an out of bounds > >> update of the libapache2-mod-gnutls pac

Re: Bug#577141: A little update

2010-07-23 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Fri, July 23, 2010 00:23, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:58:10 -0700, Jack Bates wrote: > >> Hi, to address bug #577141 in lenny, would you consider an out of bounds >> update of the libapache2-mod-gnutls package to 0.5.5-1? >> > What would the diff look like? (A minimal tar

Re: Bug#577141: A little update

2010-07-22 Thread Julien Cristau
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:58:10 -0700, Jack Bates wrote: > Hi, to address bug #577141 in lenny, would you consider an out of bounds > update of the libapache2-mod-gnutls package to 0.5.5-1? > What would the diff look like? (A minimal targetted fix is usually preferred over a full upgrade to a n

Re: Bug#577141: A little update

2010-07-22 Thread Jack Bates
Hi, to address bug #577141 in lenny, would you consider an out of bounds update of the libapache2-mod-gnutls package to 0.5.5-1? On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 05:53 +0200, Alster wrote: > I just checked with a DD friend of mine, who kindly explained the > situation of this bug to me. He indicated that it