Your message dated Tue, 1 Jun 2010 18:03:16 +0530
with message-id <aanlktinb_kplh-jxz2ru4xntncxizb8ypp7jwora8...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#584061: recoll: Security bugs in ghostscript
has caused the Debian Bug report #584061,
regarding recoll: Security bugs in ghostscript
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
584061: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=584061
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: recoll
Severity: grave
Tags: security
Justification: user security hole
Please note remote execute-any-code security bugs in ghostscript:
http://bugs.debian.org/583183
This package suggests ghostscript, and may be affected. Please
evaluate the security of this package, and fix if needed.
Thanks,
Paul Szabo p...@maths.usyd.edu.au http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Sydney Australia
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.4
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-pk03.17-svr (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, <paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>> I'm slightly puzzled by your mass-bug filing. Why you opened bugs for
>> packages that suggest ghostscript...?
>
> I was not sure what relationship is implied by "suggest". It turns out
> that even "depends on" (or my parsing of the Packages file?) was not so
> good, I "hit" printconf instead of foomatic-filters apparently.
>
> But in essence, because I was asked to do so: please see
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=583183#42
> and thereabouts.
Hi Paul,
As discussion happened on debian-devel list,
1. MBF should have proper procedure.
2. I'm also disagree that package that suggests affected package has grave bug.
3. Bug should be fixed in gs, not on depends or suggests packages.
Therefore, I'm closing bug :)
--
Cheers,
Kartik Mistry
Debian GNU/Linux Developer
0xD1028C8D | Identica: @kartikm | IRC: kart_
Blogs: {gu: kartikm, en: ftbfs}.wordpress.com
--- End Message ---
