Discussion:
[users] ProFTPd Vulnerability
Andy Loughran
2010-11-13 08:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd identified at
patched a zero day vulnerability in their source [0].

I'm currently running proftpd-1.3.2 from the rpmforge repository. Can
someone tell me how soon this package may get patched against this exploit?

Regards,

Andy Loughran

[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101113/929e6e79/attachment.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 00:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd identified at
patched a zero day vulnerability in their source [0].
[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
Please can someone let me know if I've sent this email to the correct list?

Regards,

Andy Loughran
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/000381e0/attachment.html
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 08:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd
identified at patched a zero day vulnerability in their source
[0].
[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
Please can someone let me know if I've sent this email to the correct list?
Regards,
Andy Loughran
Hi Andy,

yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.

Chris
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 08:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Hi Andy,
yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.
Chris
Chris I'm too rebuilding. Just add:
@@ -91,7 +91,6 @@
fi
%configure \
--libexecdir="%{_libexecdir}/proftpd" \
- --localstatedir="%{_var}/run" \
--enable-ctrls \
--enable-dso \
%{!?_without_acl:--enable-facl} \
@@ -122,6 +121,7 @@
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/uploads
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/pub
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/log/proftpd
+%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/run/proftpd
touch %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ftpusers

I'm just wondering about release version... Are we going to name it 1.3.3c?
Regards,
DH
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 08:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Hi Andy,
yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.
Chris
@@ -91,7 +91,6 @@
fi
%configure \
--libexecdir="%{_libexecdir}/proftpd" \
- --localstatedir="%{_var}/run" \
--enable-ctrls \
--enable-dso \
%{!?_without_acl:--enable-facl} \
@@ -122,6 +121,7 @@
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/uploads
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/pub
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/log/proftpd
+%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/run/proftpd
touch %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ftpusers
I'm just wondering about release version... Are we going to name it 1.3.3c?
Regards,
DH
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).

Cheers
Chris
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 09:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 09:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Guys,
From my perspective it'd probably be quite useful to be able to roll rpms
and submit them back to rpmforge in cases such as this one. Could one of
you please let me know the process you've used for building the rpm? I'll
look for the submission process on the website.

Regards,

Andy
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/8174786c/attachment.html
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 10:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Guys,
From my perspective it'd probably be quite useful to be able to roll
rpms and submit them back to rpmforge in cases such as this one.
Could one of you please let me know the process you've used for
building the rpm? I'll look for the submission process on the
website.
Regards,
Andy
Andy,

you can submit patches for the spec files here. The specs can be found
in a public available svn at http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/.
From those spec files automatically rebuild the rpms for a large number
of plattforms.

So submitting RPMs is actually not a useful thing here.

Regards
Chris
Steve Huff
2010-11-16 12:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Could one of you please let me know the process you've used for building the rpm?
Andy,

Instructions for rebuilding an RPMforge package are here:

http://www.vecna.org/wiki/RPMforgeRebuild

The updated specfile is here:

http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec

I recommend that you build your own package as an interim measure, so that you won't have to worry about how long it takes for the updated package to get pushed to the repository.

-steve
--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/5c3579f4/attachment.bin
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 10:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Guys,
From my perspective it'd probably be quite useful to be able to roll
rpms and submit them back to rpmforge in cases such as this one.
Could one of you please let me know the process you've used for
building the rpm? I'll look for the submission process on the
website.
Regards,
Andy
Andy,

you can submit patches for the spec files here. The specs can be found
in a public available svn at http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/.
From those spec files automatically rebuild the rpms for a large number
of plattforms.

So submitting RPMs is actually not a useful thing here.

Regards
Chris
Steve Huff
2010-11-16 12:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Could one of you please let me know the process you've used for building the rpm?
Andy,

Instructions for rebuilding an RPMforge package are here:

http://www.vecna.org/wiki/RPMforgeRebuild

The updated specfile is here:

http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec

I recommend that you build your own package as an interim measure, so that you won't have to worry about how long it takes for the updated package to get pushed to the repository.

-steve
--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/5c3579f4/attachment-0001.bin
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 10:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Guys,
From my perspective it'd probably be quite useful to be able to roll
rpms and submit them back to rpmforge in cases such as this one.
Could one of you please let me know the process you've used for
building the rpm? I'll look for the submission process on the
website.
Regards,
Andy
Andy,

you can submit patches for the spec files here. The specs can be found
in a public available svn at http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/.
From those spec files automatically rebuild the rpms for a large number
of plattforms.

So submitting RPMs is actually not a useful thing here.

Regards
Chris
Steve Huff
2010-11-16 12:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Could one of you please let me know the process you've used for building the rpm?
Andy,

Instructions for rebuilding an RPMforge package are here:

http://www.vecna.org/wiki/RPMforgeRebuild

The updated specfile is here:

http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec

I recommend that you build your own package as an interim measure, so that you won't have to worry about how long it takes for the updated package to get pushed to the repository.

-steve
--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/5c3579f4/attachment-0002.bin
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 10:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Guys,
From my perspective it'd probably be quite useful to be able to roll
rpms and submit them back to rpmforge in cases such as this one.
Could one of you please let me know the process you've used for
building the rpm? I'll look for the submission process on the
website.
Regards,
Andy
Andy,

you can submit patches for the spec files here. The specs can be found
in a public available svn at http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/.
From those spec files automatically rebuild the rpms for a large number
of plattforms.

So submitting RPMs is actually not a useful thing here.

Regards
Chris
Steve Huff
2010-11-16 12:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Could one of you please let me know the process you've used for building the rpm?
Andy,

Instructions for rebuilding an RPMforge package are here:

http://www.vecna.org/wiki/RPMforgeRebuild

The updated specfile is here:

http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec

I recommend that you build your own package as an interim measure, so that you won't have to worry about how long it takes for the updated package to get pushed to the repository.

-steve
--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/5c3579f4/attachment-0003.bin
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 10:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Guys,
From my perspective it'd probably be quite useful to be able to roll
rpms and submit them back to rpmforge in cases such as this one.
Could one of you please let me know the process you've used for
building the rpm? I'll look for the submission process on the
website.
Regards,
Andy
Andy,

you can submit patches for the spec files here. The specs can be found
in a public available svn at http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/.
From those spec files automatically rebuild the rpms for a large number
of plattforms.

So submitting RPMs is actually not a useful thing here.

Regards
Chris
Steve Huff
2010-11-16 12:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Could one of you please let me know the process you've used for building the rpm?
Andy,

Instructions for rebuilding an RPMforge package are here:

http://www.vecna.org/wiki/RPMforgeRebuild

The updated specfile is here:

http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec

I recommend that you build your own package as an interim measure, so that you won't have to worry about how long it takes for the updated package to get pushed to the repository.

-steve
--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction. - Fabian, Twelfth Night, III,v
PGP 8477B706 (A92A 1F7E 6D76 16A0 BFF9 E61D AD54 0251 8477 B706)



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/5c3579f4/attachment.sig>
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 10:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?

Chris
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 10:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 11:41:54 UTC
Permalink
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?

Regards,

Andy Loughran
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/8fa359af/attachment.html
Philip Durbin
2010-11-16 15:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
You can see commits to the spec file here:
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec

You can see results of the build process (ok vs. ko) here:
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/_buildlogs/

You can see the successfully built RPMs here:
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/

I believe I have this right, but I defer to the experts.

Phil
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 15:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for all your info guys, really appreciate it.

Also, thanks for the instructions on rolling my own. Think that's going to
be the short term solution for problems such as this - but hopefully will be
able to then submit my .spec file to the cause.

Thanks again for the repository.

Andy
Post by Steve Huff
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/_buildlogs/
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/
I believe I have this right, but I defer to the experts.
Phil
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/9c7f1b53/attachment.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 15:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for all your info guys, really appreciate it.

Also, thanks for the instructions on rolling my own. Think that's going to
be the short term solution for problems such as this - but hopefully will be
able to then submit my .spec file to the cause.

Thanks again for the repository.

Andy
Post by Steve Huff
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/_buildlogs/
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/
I believe I have this right, but I defer to the experts.
Phil
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/9c7f1b53/attachment-0001.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 15:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for all your info guys, really appreciate it.

Also, thanks for the instructions on rolling my own. Think that's going to
be the short term solution for problems such as this - but hopefully will be
able to then submit my .spec file to the cause.

Thanks again for the repository.

Andy
Post by Steve Huff
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/_buildlogs/
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/
I believe I have this right, but I defer to the experts.
Phil
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/9c7f1b53/attachment-0002.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 15:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for all your info guys, really appreciate it.

Also, thanks for the instructions on rolling my own. Think that's going to
be the short term solution for problems such as this - but hopefully will be
able to then submit my .spec file to the cause.

Thanks again for the repository.

Andy
Post by Steve Huff
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/_buildlogs/
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/
I believe I have this right, but I defer to the experts.
Phil
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/9c7f1b53/attachment-0003.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 15:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for all your info guys, really appreciate it.

Also, thanks for the instructions on rolling my own. Think that's going to
be the short term solution for problems such as this - but hopefully will be
able to then submit my .spec file to the cause.

Thanks again for the repository.

Andy
Post by Steve Huff
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/_buildlogs/
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/
I believe I have this right, but I defer to the experts.
Phil
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/9c7f1b53/attachment-0004.html>
Yury V. Zaytsev
2010-11-16 15:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
The official statement would be "when Dag has time to rebuild it". Most
of the times he is pretty quick, sometimes not.
--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev
Philip Durbin
2010-11-16 15:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
You can see commits to the spec file here:
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec

You can see results of the build process (ok vs. ko) here:
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/_buildlogs/

You can see the successfully built RPMs here:
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/

I believe I have this right, but I defer to the experts.

Phil
Yury V. Zaytsev
2010-11-16 15:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
The official statement would be "when Dag has time to rebuild it". Most
of the times he is pretty quick, sometimes not.
--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev
Philip Durbin
2010-11-16 15:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
You can see commits to the spec file here:
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec

You can see results of the build process (ok vs. ko) here:
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/_buildlogs/

You can see the successfully built RPMs here:
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/

I believe I have this right, but I defer to the experts.

Phil
Yury V. Zaytsev
2010-11-16 15:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
The official statement would be "when Dag has time to rebuild it". Most
of the times he is pretty quick, sometimes not.
--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev
Philip Durbin
2010-11-16 15:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
You can see commits to the spec file here:
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec

You can see results of the build process (ok vs. ko) here:
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/_buildlogs/

You can see the successfully built RPMs here:
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/

I believe I have this right, but I defer to the experts.

Phil
Yury V. Zaytsev
2010-11-16 15:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
The official statement would be "when Dag has time to rebuild it". Most
of the times he is pretty quick, sometimes not.
--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev
Philip Durbin
2010-11-16 15:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
You can see commits to the spec file here:
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/trunk/rpms/proftpd/proftpd.spec

You can see results of the build process (ok vs. ko) here:
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/_buildlogs/

You can see the successfully built RPMs here:
http://packages.sw.be/proftpd/

I believe I have this right, but I defer to the experts.

Phil
Yury V. Zaytsev
2010-11-16 15:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?
The official statement would be "when Dag has time to rebuild it". Most
of the times he is pretty quick, sometimes not.
--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 12:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
Still time to change it, what do others think?

Chris
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 13:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Still time to change it, what do others think?
Chris
I have tested it and the result is ok l1.3.3<1.3.3c<1.3.4.

root at specs2:1186:186:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
1:hrb-aha ###########################################
[100%]
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:01
root at specs2:1187:187:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
package hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch (which is newer than
hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch) is already installed
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:04

DH
Yury V. Zaytsev
2010-11-16 15:47:44 UTC
Permalink
FYI: You can use rpmvercmp for this matter.
--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Still time to change it, what do others think?
Chris
I have tested it and the result is ok l1.3.3<1.3.3c<1.3.4.
root at specs2:1186:186:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
1:hrb-aha ###########################################
[100%]
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:01
root at specs2:1187:187:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
package hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch (which is newer than
hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch) is already installed
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:04
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Yury V. Zaytsev
2010-11-16 15:47:44 UTC
Permalink
FYI: You can use rpmvercmp for this matter.
--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Still time to change it, what do others think?
Chris
I have tested it and the result is ok l1.3.3<1.3.3c<1.3.4.
root at specs2:1186:186:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
1:hrb-aha ###########################################
[100%]
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:01
root at specs2:1187:187:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
package hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch (which is newer than
hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch) is already installed
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:04
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Yury V. Zaytsev
2010-11-16 15:47:44 UTC
Permalink
FYI: You can use rpmvercmp for this matter.
--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Still time to change it, what do others think?
Chris
I have tested it and the result is ok l1.3.3<1.3.3c<1.3.4.
root at specs2:1186:186:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
1:hrb-aha ###########################################
[100%]
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:01
root at specs2:1187:187:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
package hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch (which is newer than
hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch) is already installed
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:04
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Yury V. Zaytsev
2010-11-16 15:47:44 UTC
Permalink
FYI: You can use rpmvercmp for this matter.
--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Still time to change it, what do others think?
Chris
I have tested it and the result is ok l1.3.3<1.3.3c<1.3.4.
root at specs2:1186:186:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
1:hrb-aha ###########################################
[100%]
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:01
root at specs2:1187:187:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
package hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch (which is newer than
hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch) is already installed
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:04
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
Yury V. Zaytsev
2010-11-16 15:47:44 UTC
Permalink
FYI: You can use rpmvercmp for this matter.
--
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Still time to change it, what do others think?
Chris
I have tested it and the result is ok l1.3.3<1.3.3c<1.3.4.
root at specs2:1186:186:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
1:hrb-aha ###########################################
[100%]
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:01
root at specs2:1187:187:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
package hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch (which is newer than
hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch) is already installed
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:04
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 13:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Still time to change it, what do others think?
Chris
I have tested it and the result is ok l1.3.3<1.3.3c<1.3.4.

root at specs2:1186:186:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
1:hrb-aha ###########################################
[100%]
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:01
root at specs2:1187:187:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
package hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch (which is newer than
hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch) is already installed
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:04

DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 13:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Still time to change it, what do others think?
Chris
I have tested it and the result is ok l1.3.3<1.3.3c<1.3.4.

root at specs2:1186:186:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
1:hrb-aha ###########################################
[100%]
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:01
root at specs2:1187:187:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
package hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch (which is newer than
hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch) is already installed
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:04

DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 13:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Still time to change it, what do others think?
Chris
I have tested it and the result is ok l1.3.3<1.3.3c<1.3.4.

root at specs2:1186:186:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
1:hrb-aha ###########################################
[100%]
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:01
root at specs2:1187:187:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
package hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch (which is newer than
hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch) is already installed
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:04

DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 13:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Still time to change it, what do others think?
Chris
I have tested it and the result is ok l1.3.3<1.3.3c<1.3.4.

root at specs2:1186:186:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
1:hrb-aha ###########################################
[100%]
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:01
root at specs2:1187:187:/usr/src/redhat/SPECS$ rpm -Uhv
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch.rpm
Preparing... ###########################################
[100%]
package hrb-aha-1.3.4-1.el5.hrb.noarch (which is newer than
hrb-aha-1.3.3c-1.el5.hrb.noarch) is already installed
Tue Nov 16 at 14:16:04

DH
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 11:41:54 UTC
Permalink
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?

Regards,

Andy Loughran
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/8fa359af/attachment-0001.html
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 12:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
Still time to change it, what do others think?

Chris
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 11:41:54 UTC
Permalink
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?

Regards,

Andy Loughran
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/8fa359af/attachment-0002.html
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 12:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
Still time to change it, what do others think?

Chris
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 11:41:54 UTC
Permalink
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?

Regards,

Andy Loughran
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/8fa359af/attachment-0003.html
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 12:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
Still time to change it, what do others think?

Chris
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 11:41:54 UTC
Permalink
What's the normal lead time from submission to being available in the
repos? Is there a place I can track it?

Regards,

Andy Loughran
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/8fa359af/attachment-0004.html>
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 12:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
Still time to change it, what do others think?

Chris
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 10:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 10:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 10:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 10:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?
Chris
I have submitted 1.3.3c :o(.
DH
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 09:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Guys,
From my perspective it'd probably be quite useful to be able to roll rpms
and submit them back to rpmforge in cases such as this one. Could one of
you please let me know the process you've used for building the rpm? I'll
look for the submission process on the website.

Regards,

Andy
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/8174786c/attachment-0001.html
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 10:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?

Chris
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 09:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Guys,
From my perspective it'd probably be quite useful to be able to roll rpms
and submit them back to rpmforge in cases such as this one. Could one of
you please let me know the process you've used for building the rpm? I'll
look for the submission process on the website.

Regards,

Andy
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/8174786c/attachment-0002.html
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 10:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?

Chris
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 09:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Guys,
From my perspective it'd probably be quite useful to be able to roll rpms
and submit them back to rpmforge in cases such as this one. Could one of
you please let me know the process you've used for building the rpm? I'll
look for the submission process on the website.

Regards,

Andy
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/8174786c/attachment-0003.html
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 10:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?

Chris
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 09:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Guys,
From my perspective it'd probably be quite useful to be able to roll rpms
and submit them back to rpmforge in cases such as this one. Could one of
you please let me know the process you've used for building the rpm? I'll
look for the submission process on the website.

Regards,

Andy
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.rpmforge.net
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/8174786c/attachment-0004.html>
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 10:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
Damn thats a good point, so we start again with %{real_version} and make
it 1.3.3.c ?

Chris
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 09:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 09:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 09:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 09:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).
Yes, I'm just not quite sure yum will consider 1.3.4>1.3.3c...
DH
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 08:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Hi Andy,
yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.
Chris
@@ -91,7 +91,6 @@
fi
%configure \
--libexecdir="%{_libexecdir}/proftpd" \
- --localstatedir="%{_var}/run" \
--enable-ctrls \
--enable-dso \
%{!?_without_acl:--enable-facl} \
@@ -122,6 +121,7 @@
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/uploads
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/pub
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/log/proftpd
+%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/run/proftpd
touch %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ftpusers
I'm just wondering about release version... Are we going to name it 1.3.3c?
Regards,
DH
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).

Cheers
Chris
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 08:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Hi Andy,
yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.
Chris
@@ -91,7 +91,6 @@
fi
%configure \
--libexecdir="%{_libexecdir}/proftpd" \
- --localstatedir="%{_var}/run" \
--enable-ctrls \
--enable-dso \
%{!?_without_acl:--enable-facl} \
@@ -122,6 +121,7 @@
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/uploads
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/pub
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/log/proftpd
+%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/run/proftpd
touch %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ftpusers
I'm just wondering about release version... Are we going to name it 1.3.3c?
Regards,
DH
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).

Cheers
Chris
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 08:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Hi Andy,
yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.
Chris
@@ -91,7 +91,6 @@
fi
%configure \
--libexecdir="%{_libexecdir}/proftpd" \
- --localstatedir="%{_var}/run" \
--enable-ctrls \
--enable-dso \
%{!?_without_acl:--enable-facl} \
@@ -122,6 +121,7 @@
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/uploads
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/pub
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/log/proftpd
+%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/run/proftpd
touch %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ftpusers
I'm just wondering about release version... Are we going to name it 1.3.3c?
Regards,
DH
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).

Cheers
Chris
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 08:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Hrbáč
Post by Christoph Maser
Hi Andy,
yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.
Chris
@@ -91,7 +91,6 @@
fi
%configure \
--libexecdir="%{_libexecdir}/proftpd" \
- --localstatedir="%{_var}/run" \
--enable-ctrls \
--enable-dso \
%{!?_without_acl:--enable-facl} \
@@ -122,6 +121,7 @@
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/uploads
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/pub
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/log/proftpd
+%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/run/proftpd
touch %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ftpusers
I'm just wondering about release version... Are we going to name it 1.3.3c?
Regards,
DH
Actually I have a totally different problem. It seems that my build
system is broken. If it builds for you, just submit your update I will
thrwo mine away.
I don't mind the version number beeing 1.3.3c letters for patchlever
releases are not that uncommon (tzdata, openssl).

Cheers
Chris
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 08:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Hi Andy,
yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.
Chris
Chris I'm too rebuilding. Just add:
@@ -91,7 +91,6 @@
fi
%configure \
--libexecdir="%{_libexecdir}/proftpd" \
- --localstatedir="%{_var}/run" \
--enable-ctrls \
--enable-dso \
%{!?_without_acl:--enable-facl} \
@@ -122,6 +121,7 @@
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/uploads
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/pub
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/log/proftpd
+%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/run/proftpd
touch %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ftpusers

I'm just wondering about release version... Are we going to name it 1.3.3c?
Regards,
DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 08:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Hi Andy,
yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.
Chris
Chris I'm too rebuilding. Just add:
@@ -91,7 +91,6 @@
fi
%configure \
--libexecdir="%{_libexecdir}/proftpd" \
- --localstatedir="%{_var}/run" \
--enable-ctrls \
--enable-dso \
%{!?_without_acl:--enable-facl} \
@@ -122,6 +121,7 @@
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/uploads
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/pub
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/log/proftpd
+%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/run/proftpd
touch %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ftpusers

I'm just wondering about release version... Are we going to name it 1.3.3c?
Regards,
DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 08:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Hi Andy,
yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.
Chris
Chris I'm too rebuilding. Just add:
@@ -91,7 +91,6 @@
fi
%configure \
--libexecdir="%{_libexecdir}/proftpd" \
- --localstatedir="%{_var}/run" \
--enable-ctrls \
--enable-dso \
%{!?_without_acl:--enable-facl} \
@@ -122,6 +121,7 @@
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/uploads
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/pub
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/log/proftpd
+%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/run/proftpd
touch %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ftpusers

I'm just wondering about release version... Are we going to name it 1.3.3c?
Regards,
DH
David Hrbáč
2010-11-16 08:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Maser
Hi Andy,
yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.
Chris
Chris I'm too rebuilding. Just add:
@@ -91,7 +91,6 @@
fi
%configure \
--libexecdir="%{_libexecdir}/proftpd" \
- --localstatedir="%{_var}/run" \
--enable-ctrls \
--enable-dso \
%{!?_without_acl:--enable-facl} \
@@ -122,6 +121,7 @@
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/uploads
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/ftp/pub
%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/log/proftpd
+%{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}/var/run/proftpd
touch %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ftpusers

I'm just wondering about release version... Are we going to name it 1.3.3c?
Regards,
DH
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 08:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd
identified at patched a zero day vulnerability in their source
[0].
[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
Please can someone let me know if I've sent this email to the correct list?
Regards,
Andy Loughran
Hi Andy,

yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.

Chris
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 08:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd
identified at patched a zero day vulnerability in their source
[0].
[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
Please can someone let me know if I've sent this email to the correct list?
Regards,
Andy Loughran
Hi Andy,

yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.

Chris
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 08:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd
identified at patched a zero day vulnerability in their source
[0].
[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
Please can someone let me know if I've sent this email to the correct list?
Regards,
Andy Loughran
Hi Andy,

yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.

Chris
Christoph Maser
2010-11-16 08:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd
identified at patched a zero day vulnerability in their source
[0].
[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
Please can someone let me know if I've sent this email to the correct list?
Regards,
Andy Loughran
Hi Andy,

yes this is the correct list, and thank you for reporting. I am
currently having a look a at this and will push an update as soon as
possible. I have some minor problems rebuilding it.

Chris
Andy Loughran
2010-11-13 08:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd identified at
patched a zero day vulnerability in their source [0].

I'm currently running proftpd-1.3.2 from the rpmforge repository. Can
someone tell me how soon this package may get patched against this exploit?

Regards,

Andy Loughran

[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101113/929e6e79/attachment-0001.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 00:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd identified at
patched a zero day vulnerability in their source [0].
[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
Please can someone let me know if I've sent this email to the correct list?

Regards,

Andy Loughran
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/000381e0/attachment-0001.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-13 08:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd identified at
patched a zero day vulnerability in their source [0].

I'm currently running proftpd-1.3.2 from the rpmforge repository. Can
someone tell me how soon this package may get patched against this exploit?

Regards,

Andy Loughran

[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101113/929e6e79/attachment-0002.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 00:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd identified at
patched a zero day vulnerability in their source [0].
[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
Please can someone let me know if I've sent this email to the correct list?

Regards,

Andy Loughran
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/000381e0/attachment-0002.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-13 08:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd identified at
patched a zero day vulnerability in their source [0].

I'm currently running proftpd-1.3.2 from the rpmforge repository. Can
someone tell me how soon this package may get patched against this exploit?

Regards,

Andy Loughran

[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101113/929e6e79/attachment-0003.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 00:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd identified at
patched a zero day vulnerability in their source [0].
[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
Please can someone let me know if I've sent this email to the correct list?

Regards,

Andy Loughran
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/000381e0/attachment-0003.html
Andy Loughran
2010-11-13 08:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd identified at
patched a zero day vulnerability in their source [0].

I'm currently running proftpd-1.3.2 from the rpmforge repository. Can
someone tell me how soon this package may get patched against this exploit?

Regards,

Andy Loughran

[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101113/929e6e79/attachment-0004.html>
Andy Loughran
2010-11-16 00:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Loughran
Hi Guys,
I noticed yesterday that on the 29/10/2010 that proftpd identified at
patched a zero day vulnerability in their source [0].
[0] http://bugs.proftpd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3521
Please can someone let me know if I've sent this email to the correct list?

Regards,

Andy Loughran
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101116/000381e0/attachment-0004.html>
Loading...