On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 16:03:58 +0100, Raphael Bossek wrote:
> Dear Christian,
>
> Debian uses a different directory structure then upstream since years.
> The CVE-2010-3764 patch can not be applied as drop in because it's
> affect the directory structure of Debian. You have to change Debian's
>
Quoting Raphael Bossek (boss...@debian.org):
> Dear Christian,
>
> Debian uses a different directory structure then upstream since years.
> The CVE-2010-3764 patch can not be applied as drop in because it's
> affect the directory structure of Debian. You have to change Debian's
> patches to achiev
Dear Christian,
Debian uses a different directory structure then upstream since years.
The CVE-2010-3764 patch can not be applied as drop in because it's
affect the directory structure of Debian. You have to change Debian's
patches to achieve this too.
Instead of loosing time changing something t
Quoting Julien Cristau (jcris...@debian.org):
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 22:05:47 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 21:07 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > $ debdiff ftp/pool/main/b/bugzilla/bugzilla_3.6.{2.0-4,3.0-2}.dsc
> > > 2>/dev/null | diffstat | tail -n1
> > > 164
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 22:05:47 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 21:07 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > $ debdiff ftp/pool/main/b/bugzilla/bugzilla_3.6.{2.0-4,3.0-2}.dsc
> > 2>/dev/null | diffstat | tail -n1
> > 1645 files changed, 80807 insertions(+), 94494 deletions(-)
>
On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 21:07 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> $ debdiff ftp/pool/main/b/bugzilla/bugzilla_3.6.{2.0-4,3.0-2}.dsc 2>/dev/null
> | diffstat | tail -n1
> 1645 files changed, 80807 insertions(+), 94494 deletions(-)
>
> A lot of that is probably ignorable as it relates to changes in CVS
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:34 +0100, Raphael Bossek wrote:
> thank you for your support. Sorry but I missed your response.
> If 3.6.3 is not accepted for testing -- where these security
> vulnerabilities (http://bugs.debian.org/602420) are solved upstream --
> applying patches to 3.6.2 could be but i
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:34:11AM +0100, Raphael Bossek wrote:
> Hi Moritz,
>
> thank you for your support. Sorry but I missed your response.
> If 3.6.3 is not accepted for testing -- where these security
> vulnerabilities (http://bugs.debian.org/602420) are solved upstream --
> applying patches
Hi Moritz,
thank you for your support. Sorry but I missed your response.
If 3.6.3 is not accepted for testing -- where these security
vulnerabilities (http://bugs.debian.org/602420) are solved upstream --
applying patches to 3.6.2 could be but in consideration. By the way,
3.6.3.0-2 solved some fu
9 matches
Mail list logo
