On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 12:03:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 08:32:29AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> > Luk Claes wrote:
> > > If it's only about the security bug, I don't think it's a good idea to
> > > remove
> > &
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 08:32:29AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
> > If it's only about the security bug, I don't think it's a good idea to
> > remove
> > giflib from testing at this time as the bug can easily be fixed by giflib
> >
Luk Claes wrote:
> If it's only about the security bug, I don't think it's a good idea to remove
> giflib from testing at this time as the bug can easily be fixed by giflib
> leaving the NEW queue or patching giflib 3 AFAICS. Though if you think giflib
> 3.x is not
Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Daniel :-)
> giflib 3.x has a nasty security bug (#395382). I uploaded giflib 4.x to
> NEW two days ago, which fixed, amongst others, this bug.
> But in the meantime while waiting for NEW, I recommend to remove giflib
> from testing.
If it
Daniel Baumann wrote:
> no package[0] does declare a relation to giflib
[0] except vorlons libfnlib-dev which declares:
Depends: imlib11-dev, libfnlib0 (= 0.5-13), libjpeg62-dev,
libpng3-dev, libtiff4-dev, zlib1g-dev, libungif4-dev |
libungif3g-dev | giflib3g-dev
^^
tansition after etch release.
But in the meantime while waiting for NEW, I recommend to remove giflib
from testing.
Regards,
Daniel
[0]
- --
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.n
6 matches
Mail list logo