Moritz,
In revision 1178[1] of CAN/list (Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 06:27:54 +0000)
of the sarge-checks svn repository you made this log entry:
Two distinct issues are fixed for elog
CAN-2005-XXXX [Buffer overflow in elog header_buffer]
- - elog 2.5.7+r1558-3
+ - elog 2.5.9+r1674-1
There already existed an entry for elog (it still exists):
CAN-2005-XXXX [Buffer overflow in elog]
- elog 2.5.7+r1558-3
The last email[2] from the elog maintainer to the testing-security list
indicates that the upload r1558-3 solves these problems. However,
there could be a reason why you put revision 1674-1 into the file?
I asked a few days ago[3] about why there are two entries in the list
for elog, and which is correct as the release team is trying to figure
out if the outstanding testing-security entry for elog is accurate.
Can you clarify which is correct, and perhaps consolidate the two
entries?
Thanks,
micah
1.
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/secure-testing-commits/2005-May/001141.html
2.
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/secure-testing-team/2005-May/000120.html
3.
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/secure-testing-team/2005-May/000121.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/secure-testing-team/attachments/20050603/b322cb74/attachment.pgp