Dear SRMs,
(paraphrased from my mail to security team):
Versions of adtool prior to 1.3.2 are vulnerable to leaking password
information for foreign accounts on the proc title if given as arguments
to the program. I came across this by chance in a year-old bug on
Launchpad [1], and the suggested
Hi dato, *.
As suitesparse 3.4.0 entered sid now and its libs get all
into seperate packages now packages need bin-NMUs, so please:
nmu lp-solve_5.5.0.13-5 . ALL . -m "rebuild against suitesparse 3.4.0"
dw lp_solve_5.5.0.13-5+b1 . ALL - amd64 . -m 'libsuitesparse-dev (>= 1:3.4.0-1)'
OOo will get
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:01:17PM -0400, Ivan Jager wrote:
> It appears that
> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/lenny/Release.gpg is only
> being signed with the new key, not the old, so it is not trusted.
>
> Lenny security updates are being signed with both keys, but there
> does not seem to
Hi,
eglibc/2.9-13 is ready to move into testing. It fixes 2 RC bugs, and
does not introduce any known bug. Could you please hint it?
Thanks,
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
signature.asc
Descri
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:41:18AM +0200, Philipp Kern scribbled thusly:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:01:17PM -0400, Ivan Jager wrote:
> > It appears that
> > http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/lenny/Release.gpg is only
> > being signed with the new key, not the old, so it is not trusted.
> >
> >
Hi,
Rene Engelhard wrote:
> As suitesparse 3.4.0 entered sid now and its libs get all
> into seperate packages now packages need bin-NMUs, so please:
>
> nmu lp-solve_5.5.0.13-5 . ALL . -m "rebuild against suitesparse 3.4.0"
> dw lp_solve_5.5.0.13-5+b1 . ALL - amd64 . -m 'libsuitesparse-dev (>=
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:49:52AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Hi,
>
> eglibc/2.9-13 is ready to move into testing. It fixes 2 RC bugs, and
> does not introduce any known bug. Could you please hint it?
d-i people ?
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··Om
7 matches
Mail list logo