Please sync prelink 0.0.20090925-1 (main) from Debian unstable (main).

[Bhavani Shankar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

 affects ubuntu/prelink
 status new
 importance wishlist
 subscribe ubuntu-main-sponsors

Please sync prelink 0.0.20090925-1 (main) from Debian unstable (main).

Explanation of the Ubuntu delta and why it can be dropped:

Debian has applied kees' patch and changed architecture to any and
ubuntu has dropped lpia arch so can be synced again.

Changelog since current lucid version 0.0.20090311-1ubuntu3:

prelink (0.0.20090925-1) unstable; urgency=low

  * New upstream release.
  * debian/{control,rules}:
    - Split execstack into a separate binary package to avoid dragging
      the full prelink utility/cron stack into main. (Closes: #543599)
      Thanks to Kees Cook <email address hidden>
  * debian/control:
    - Prelink is now supposed to build on any architecture. (Closes: #497328)
  * debian/patches/timestamp.dpatch
    - Adds -T options to add timestamp on every error output. (Closes: #367320)
  * debian/prelink.sh:
    - Verifies if the programm is being redirected or attached to a TTY.
      (Closes: #449383)

 -- Andrés Roldán <email address hidden> Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:07:56 +0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLUVtzNrEIsZrsMaARAp4aAJ9pRZOUXE6eyXyOQh6wVDAHlNAt+ACfcVIz
67U/Z2VW8rWTHMoswawON0k=
=WoN4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

I'm not sure we can easily drop this:
-Conflicts: prelink (<< 0.0.20090311-1ubuntu2)
+Conflicts: prelink (<< 0.0.20090311-2)

Kees: what do you think?

[Kees Cook (kees)]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:39:11AM -0000, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> I'm not sure we can easily drop this:
> -Conflicts: prelink (<< 0.0.20090311-1ubuntu2)
> +Conflicts: prelink (<< 0.0.20090311-2)
>
> Kees: what do you think?

In the interests of being in sync with Debian, I think this is okay to
drop. It's only a problem if someone has "prelink" from
0.0.20090311-1ubuntu1 and they try to install "execstack" from
0.0.20090311-2. I think this is pretty unlikely, given that if they had
upgraded to the point where 0.0.20090311-2 was available, they'd already
have 0.0.20090311-1ubuntu3 with the Conflicts line.

I say go for it.

--
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team

[James Westby (james-w)]

[Updating] prelink (0.0.20090311-1ubuntu3 [Ubuntu] < 0.0.20090925-1 [Debian])
 * Trying to add prelink...
  - <prelink_0.0.20090925.orig.tar.gz: downloading from http://ftp.debian.org/debian/>
  - <prelink_0.0.20090925-1.diff.gz: downloading from http://ftp.debian.org/debian/>
  - <prelink_0.0.20090925-1.dsc: downloading from http://ftp.debian.org/debian/>
I: prelink [main] -> prelink_0.0.20090311-1ubuntu3 [universe].
I: prelink [main] -> execstack_0.0.20090311-1ubuntu3 [main].

[James Westby (james-w)]

[Updating] prelink (0.0.20090311-1ubuntu3 [Ubuntu] < 0.0.20090925-1 [Debian])
 * Trying to add prelink...
  - <prelink_0.0.20090925.orig.tar.gz: cached>
  - <prelink_0.0.20090925-1.diff.gz: cached>
  - <prelink_0.0.20090925-1.dsc: cached>
I: prelink [main] -> prelink_0.0.20090311-1ubuntu3 [universe].
I: prelink [main] -> execstack_0.0.20090311-1ubuntu3 [main].