| Summary: | app-backup/obnam-1.8-r1 - add Debian(?) patches | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Small_Penguin <dark.shadow> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Marc Schiffbauer <mschiff> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://code.liw.fi/debian/pool/main/o/obnam/ | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Small_Penguin
2014-08-06 17:56:31 UTC
Please provide some more info why we should do this. What is wrong with this versionin gentoo? obnam (1.8-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream version.
- "obnam excludes files with "syslog" in the name without me
specifying it" (Closes: #682667)
- "obnam: client not found, but cannot remove lock" (Closes: #675825)
- "data leak during restore" (Closes: #745112)
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682667
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=675825
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=745112
I'm not sure how severe these issues are, but since debian has them - and I suspect they are pretty conservative regarding such patches - I thought I'd post them here for consideration.
Actually, there are other issues regarding obnam (like unused chunks not being cleaned or checkpoint generations not getting removed) which have been fixed in git (git://git.liw.fi/obnam), but of course one has to draw a line somewhere and wait for the next release.
Feel free to close this bug report if you consider this a non-issue.
Ok. This is just the Changelog for the new 1.8 upstream version. From what I see there are no debian specific patches at all. Please bear in mind that "upstream" here is very close to debian, because the Author of obnam is a debian developer. The diff you are referring to is just the debian specific packaging stuff (the debian/ subdirectory in the source tree) Nevertheless thanks for reporting ;) Closing. I see. Thanks for clarification. I guess I got pretty confused somehow ;-) |
