[php-maint] [Pkg-php-commits] r1243 - php5/branches/etch/debian
seanius at debian.org
Sat Jan 31 23:04:57 UTC 2009
apologies for the late reply, the motherboard on my main laptop gave up
the ghost :(
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:05:13AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> > * Backport the patch from lenny/sid to use the system timezone database
> > instead of the embedded php timezone database which is out of date.
> > Patch: 143-use_embedded_timezonedb.patch (closes: #471104).
> > * Repack the etch version of php5, stripping out the (unused) dbase
> > module which contained licensing problems (closes: #498621).
> Are you planning on letting this upload go through stable-security? Because
> the changes listed above are not changes that are usually considered
> appropriate for the security archive. Especially the latter change changes
> the behaviour of php5 on stable which is not something expected to happen
> with a mere security update.
I was planning on *proposing* it to go along with a security upload. It's
work that needs to be done, but once done can be removed and added back in
for a later s-p-u package if that's necessary.
the former change is the more controversial of the two and brings a pretty
hefty chunk of code along with it, but the patch is fairly well tested and
not too different from the version in testing/unstable (i had massage it just
a little to remove some fuzz), and a similar variant is in use by redhat (from
whom the patch came) in older versions of php5.
the latter change should not have any affect on packages that we ship,
as we don't provide any dbase related stuff.
> I think an upload to security with the security fixes and after its release
> one to stable with the other fixes may be the best way to go. CC'ing the
> security team in case anyone has further comments.
it would be creating some additional work due to the extra steps, but i'm
willing to do that if that's what's required.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> I can't speak for Sean, but doing that IMHO would be suboptimal and
> too much hassle. In the event that somebody actually builds the dbase
> extension by hand, they could keep using the one they have previously
> built, it won't break at all.
and i'm not sure this is a corner case we should go out of our way to support,
given that this is a pretty clear-cut licensing issue that needs to be resolved.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 07:51:09PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > I think an upload to security with the security fixes and after its release
> > one to stable with the other fixes may be the best way to go. CC'ing the
> > security team in case anyone has further comments.
> Since the next php5 stable-security update after the stable update will
> incorporate the changes from the stable update anyway, this seems like a
> waste of ressources. We should treat ever-moving packages like PHP or the
> kernel in a more reasonable way and just announce in the DSA that the
> update incorporates changes, which would be added in the next point update
okay... i have a few more open security issues against the etch packages
(and then there's the oft-neglected php4...), but i'll keep the patch
included for the time being and bring up the matter again once the
package is prepared. due to the above mentioned hardware problems i'm
a bit behind where i'd like to be, but hopefully i'll be able to have
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-php-maint/attachments/20090201/05f97d17/attachment.pgp
More information about the pkg-php-maint