On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 14:06 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> There are several CVE pending for Xen, plus some embargoed ones. This
> fixes all publicly ones that have fixes.
Looking back through older requests, I spotted that this one was still
in the queue.
Assuming the changelog for 4.1.4-3+deb7u
On Wed, October 2, 2013 19:21, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:58:43PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> On Mon, September 30, 2013 18:52, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> > I don't think this will work. The current security process ignores
>> > any communitation that is otherwise part of
Hi Bastian,
Would you say that for publicly disclosed issues, the 'open' approach of
pu works better? Meaning:
1. debdiff gets reviewed on a public list, others have an opportunity
to help review and point out a mistake, and the discussion is archived
2. the proposed updates queue has a publ
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 04:58:43PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, September 30, 2013 18:52, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > I don't think this will work. The current security process ignores
> > any communitation that is otherwise part of the NMU process. As long as
> > the security team does n
On Mon, September 30, 2013 18:52, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> Thanks. I've read them. My conclusion is that there are two problems:
>> 1/ On a previous upload, someone from the security team added extra
>> changes without coordination o
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Thanks. I've read them. My conclusion is that there are two problems:
> 1/ On a previous upload, someone from the security team added extra
> changes without coordination or reporting them back.
> 2/ It took long to process the uplo
On Mon, September 23, 2013 10:47, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:47:32AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> Do you have a message ID for me? I'd rather try to see what the problems
>> with the wheezy-security route are and how we can resolve them, rather
>> than try to work around
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:47:32AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Do you have a message ID for me? I'd rather try to see what the problems
> with the wheezy-security route are and how we can resolve them, rather
> than try to work around them via pu.
<20130512113628.GA16136@elende>
<2013051220094
On Sun, September 22, 2013 23:34, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 09:58:54PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 14:06 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> > There are several CVE pending for Xen, plus some embargoed ones. This
>> > fixes all publicly ones that have fix
On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 23:34 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 09:58:54PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 14:06 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > There are several CVE pending for Xen, plus some embargoed ones. This
> > > fixes all publicly ones that have
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #723641 [release.debian.org] pu: package xen/4.1.4-5
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
723641: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=723641
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 14:06 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> There are several CVE pending for Xen, plus some embargoed ones. This
> fixes all publicly ones that have fixes.
Could we have a debdiff, rather than just the changelog please? Have the
security team confirmed
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
There are several CVE pending for Xen, plus some embargoed ones. This
fixes all publicly ones that have fixes.
xen (4.1.4-5) UNRELEASED; urgency=high
* Fix reference counting error introduce
13 matches
Mail list logo
