I finally was able to make room for a newlib build, and as uploaded the
fix a few minutes ago. Included is the final diff. I dropped the
switch to the QA team, as this package is not maintained by the gcc
group in unstable, and went with the more traditional version number
scheme.
diff --git a
[Salvatore Bonaccorso]
> Did you saw Adam's confirmation on this (with the comments about the
> version)?
Yes, but in the month that went between me working on newlib and the
confirmation showing up, I filled up my disk and have not had time to
free enough space to be able to build newlib again, s
Hi Petter,
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 09:44:06PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed
>
> On Sat, 2024-03-16 at 09:09 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > +newlib (3.3.0-2) bookworm; urgency=medium
> >
>
> As Salvatore already noted, that's not a conventional version numbe
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On Sat, 2024-03-16 at 09:09 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> +newlib (3.3.0-2) bookworm; urgency=medium
>
As Salvatore already noted, that's not a conventional version number
for a stable upload, but can be used iff no such version has ever been
used for a package
[Salvatore Bonaccorso]
> Note that if you are confident that the upload is accepted as it, you
> *could* already upload according to the improved workflow. *But* given
> the uncertainity if SRM want you to have the version changed I would
> wait for their ack.
I do not feel that confident, but I d
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:36:53PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> Btw, what is the timeline for approval or rejection for this security
> upload proposal?
Note that if you are confident that the upload is accepted as it, you
*could* already upload according to the improved workflow. *
Btw, what is the timeline for approval or rejection for this security
upload proposal?
--
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen
[Salvatore Bonaccorso]
> Usually you would choose for this update 3.3.0-1.3+deb12u1, but given
> 3.3.0-2 was never present in unstable and the version later moved on,
> this is in theory possible.
That reasoning is the same as mine. I also wanted to drop the NMU
version number part, to make it mo
Hi
[disclaimer, not an authoritative answer as not part of the stable
release managers]
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 09:09:05AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> Package: release.debian.org
>
> The https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/newlib > package got an open
> security problem with malloc and fri
Package: release.debian.org
The https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/newlib > package got an open
security problem with malloc and friends in stable and oldstable, see
https://bugs.debian.org/984446 > for the CVE issue. The package
is orphaned.
I would like to fix the bug at least in stable, and pro
10 matches
Mail list logo
