El jue, 11-09-2014 a las 19:29 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió: > [to the list since we have to sort this out somehow] > > Hi Pacho, > > why did you remove the firebird masks without removing the ebuilds? > > http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/package.mask?r1=1.16019&r2=1.16020 > > Are the issues fixed? (The sec bug is still open.) Now firebird is back > unmasked in the tree... and you're also removing the use.masks. This has > also, > it seems confused Patrick, who in the meantime started re-adding part of the > masks because of broken deps. > > Cheers, > Andreas >
I removed them :/ http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/dev-db/firebird/firebird-2.5.2.26539.0.ebuild?hideattic=0&view=log All but the latest version that wasn't affected by security bug as per I saw in bug #460780 07 Sep 2014; Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> -files/firebird-2.0.3.12981.0-CVE-2008-0387.patch, -files/firebird-2.0.3.12981.0-CVE-2008-0467.patch, -files/firebird-2.0.3.12981.0-external-libs.patch, -files/firebird-2.0.3.12981.0-flags.patch, -files/firebird-2.0.3.12981.0-make-deps.patch, -files/firebird-2.1.2.18118.0-deps-flags-libs.patch, -files/firebird-2.1.2.18118.0-gcc-icu-declare.patch, -files/firebird-2.5.0.26074.0-build.patch, -files/firebird-2.5.0.26074.0-client.patch, -files/firebird-2.5.0.26074.0-deps-flags-libs.patch, -files/firebird-2.5.0.26074.0-deps-flags.patch, -files/firebird-2.5.0.26074.0-superclassic.patch, -firebird-2.0.3.12981.0-r6.ebuild, -firebird-2.1.3.18185.0-r1.ebuild, -firebird-2.5.2.26539.0.ebuild, metadata.xml: Remove vulnerable versions, move to maintainer-needed (#460780)
