On Samstag, 7. Februar 2015, Jan Wagner wrote:
> it would be great if you would open a bug against the
> debian-security-support package if there isn't one pending yet.
#776904 please mark chromium as unsupported in wheezy
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 05.02.15 um 23:13 schrieb Stephen Dowdy:
> It's been less than a week since 'chromium' support was EOL'd, so
> hopefully soon 'debian-security-support' will get that updated
> info.
it would be great if you would open a bug against the
debian-secu
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Stephen Dowdy wrote:
>> So, if a user installs said package, but fails to notice any EOL DSA
>> on it, the package gets left in place in a potentially VULNERABLE
>> state. I.E. if a known exploit comes out, a
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Stephen Dowdy wrote:
> So, if a user installs said package, but fails to notice any EOL DSA
> on it, the package gets left in place in a potentially VULNERABLE
> state. I.E. if a known exploit comes out, and the package is still
> installed, the end-user could get a
(after contemplating a possible 'chromium' thread hijack, i figured
this should be a new thread)...
I see a definite problem with the way that package security support
gets end-of-lifed in Debian-Stable.
Not just chromium and other browsers, but the JDK/JRE packages,
historically, as well. I'm n
5 matches
Mail list logo
