1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.BUGS.DIST

  • Bug#1070998: bookworm-pu: package fossil/2.24-5~deb11u1

    From Barak A. Pearlmutter@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 12 23:00:01 2024
    XPost: linux.debian.devel.release

    Thanks!
    I guess preparing these is pretty straightforward.
    Would like to think my efforts to keep debian/rules etc clean and tidy
    made this work so easily.

    Given that the patch is nothing but a changelog entry, I'm assuming
    it's not really worth making a branch on fossil.
    " * Backport to bookworm (no changes required)"?

    Cheers,

    --Barak.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Salvatore Bonaccorso@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 25 21:10:01 2024
    XPost: linux.debian.devel.release

    Hi Bastien,

    On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 05:47:31PM +0000, Bastien Roucariès wrote:
    Package: release.debian.org
    Severity: normal
    Tags: bookworm
    X-Debbugs-Cc: fossil@packages.debian.org
    Control: affects -1 + src:fossil
    User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
    Usertags: pu

    this bug was opened by previous arrangement with maintainer.

    [ Reason ]
    fossil is affected by a regression due to a security update of apache CVE-2024-24795. Backport was choosen
    because upstream does not document all commit needed for fixing the regression.

    Disclaimer, not SRM so this is not an authoritative answer.

    But that means that as well packaing changes beween 1:2.21-1 and the
    proposed one are included. Are all of those allowed to be done or
    should you individually revert some changes?

    E.g. there is

    * Bump policy
    * Build depend on pkgconfig instead of obsolete pkg-config
    and
    * Oops, typo: pkgconf

    which might indeed be fine. But should defintitively be checked.

    Regards,
    Salvatore

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)