Frank Küster [2005-03-22 12:49 +0100]:
> Martin, good to hear that. Did you also read the other messages in this
> thread, namely Hamish's confusion about CAN-2004-0888 vs. CAN-2004-0889?
He is certainly not the only one who is confused about these. All
patches that I ever saw fix both CANs, and the description of both
CANs are nearly identical. I really don't know which particular fix
belongs to which CAN.
> And, by the way, why didn't you answer to the bug, or the security
> list(s)?
Hmm, I replied to <email address hidden> and I can see my
reply at
Hi!
Frank Küster [2005-03-22 12:49 +0100]:
> Martin, good to hear that. Did you also read the other messages in this
> thread, namely Hamish's confusion about CAN-2004-0888 vs. CAN-2004-0889?
He is certainly not the only one who is confused about these. All
patches that I ever saw fix both CANs, and the description of both
CANs are nearly identical. I really don't know which particular fix
belongs to which CAN.
> And, by the way, why didn't you answer to the bug, or the security
> list(s)?
Hmm, I replied to <email address hidden> and I can see my
reply at
http:// bugs.debian. org/cgi- bin/bugreport. cgi?bug= 300182
Didn't you get this mail? If not, I shall probably reply to
<email address hidden> in addition, but I thought this would happen
automatically.
Martin
-- www.piware. de www.ubuntulinux .org www.debian. org
Martin Pitt http://
Ubuntu Developer http://
Debian Developer http://