sean finney wrote:
> hiya,
Hi
Dropping security team (and members) and weasel from the recipients...
>>> the etch and lenny/sid versions both have explicit checks for a mounted
>>> /proc in debian/rules (test -d /proc/1), yes.
>> This check indeed fails very reliably on the s390 experimental bui
hiya,
On Wednesday 13 February 2008 10:58:36 pm Luk Claes wrote:
> For the etch version check_procs doesn't seem to be included in
> nagios-plugins and nagios-plugins-standard, but it's included for
> nagios-plugins-basic. For the sarge version it's only missing in the
> i386 version.
the former
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
>>> okay, it looks like the problem was that the person who did the security
>>> upload built the package in a sarge chroot without /proc mounted (i can
>>> duplicate the problem unmounting /proc in my pbuilder chroot).
>>>
>>> so, my question is what
sean finney wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 February 2008 07:54:04 pm Luk Claes wrote:
>> sean finney wrote:
>>> hi everyone,
>> Hi
>>
>>> okay, it looks like the problem was that the person who did the security
>>> upload built the package in a sarge chroot without /proc mounted (i can
>>> duplicate the
Luk Claes wrote:
> > okay, it looks like the problem was that the person who did the security
> > upload built the package in a sarge chroot without /proc mounted (i can
> > duplicate the problem unmounting /proc in my pbuilder chroot).
> >
> > so, my question is what are the next steps? can th
On Wednesday 13 February 2008 07:54:04 pm Luk Claes wrote:
> sean finney wrote:
> > hi everyone,
>
> Hi
>
> > okay, it looks like the problem was that the person who did the security
> > upload built the package in a sarge chroot without /proc mounted (i can
> > duplicate the problem unmounting /pr
sean finney wrote:
> hi everyone,
Hi
> okay, it looks like the problem was that the person who did the security
> upload built the package in a sarge chroot without /proc mounted (i can
> duplicate the problem unmounting /proc in my pbuilder chroot).
>
> so, my question is what are the next st
hi everyone,
okay, it looks like the problem was that the person who did the security
upload built the package in a sarge chroot without /proc mounted (i can
duplicate the problem unmounting /proc in my pbuilder chroot).
so, my question is what are the next steps? can the security team just
t
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 01:16:26AM +0100, sean finney wrote:
> hi security peeps,
>
> can someone check the build logs for why the check_procs plugin wasn't built?
>
> i know there's some sketchy goings on in the configure script regarding
> determining "which ps do we use" and maybe "is /proc
Additionally, check_swap and check_nagios which were both present in 1.4-6 are
missing in 1.4-6sarge1 for i386 packages (not checked any other arch).
Also, for whatever reason /etc/nagios-plugins/config/imap.cfg is missing from
1.4-6sarge1.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
hi security peeps,
can someone check the build logs for why the check_procs plugin wasn't built?
i know there's some sketchy goings on in the configure script regarding
determining "which ps do we use" and maybe "is /proc mounted", but afaik the
build dependencies are correct.
also, the amd64
Package: nagios-plugins
Version: 1.4-6sarge1
Severity: grave
check_procs disappeared in the 1.4-6sarge1 security update
nikki:~# dpkg -l nagios-plugins | grep '^ii' && dpkg -L nagios-plugins | grep
check_proc
ii nagios-plugins 1.4-6 Plugins for the nagios network monitoring an
/usr/lib
12 matches
Mail list logo
