On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:26:51PM +0100, Stefan Wiens wrote:
>
> I have reported this problem on Tue, 16 Nov 2004, bug ID #281656.
When reporting these bugs please send them to the Security Team, not to the
maintainer. Actually, the bug is not even tagged 'security'. Please see
http://www.debian
* Martin Schulze wrote:
> --
> Debian Security Advisory DSA 945-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.debian.org/security/ Martin Schulze
> January 17th, 2006 htt
* Jeroen van Wolffelaar:
> It's weird that antiword's security update was seeminly[1] based on the
> testing version, rather than the stable version:
>
> antiword | 0.35-1 |stable | source
> antiword | 0.35-2 | testing | source
> [1] Looking exclusively at the version nu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:59:45PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> AFAICS, this rule is quite reasonable, so I assume that this antiword
> version is just a minor glitch. Correct?
Yes. My fault entirely. It actually took me a while to see what
was wrong there - usually I just add 'sargeN' to
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:59:45PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Martin Schulze:
>
> > For the stable distribution (sarge) these problems have been fixed in
> > version 0.35-2sarge1.
>
> I would have expected a version like 0.35-1sarge1. The version you
> have chosen violated an implicit cons
* Martin Schulze:
> For the stable distribution (sarge) these problems have been fixed in
> version 0.35-2sarge1.
I would have expected a version like 0.35-1sarge1. The version you
have chosen violated an implicit constraint fulfilled by most (all?)
security updates: the version of a package upd
6 matches
Mail list logo
