lzo: security bump to version 2.07
PATCH v2 1/1 lzo: security bump to version 2.07
Fixes CVE-2014-4607.
---
v2:
Rephrase the comment explaining the need for AUTORECONF (Peter).
--- package/lzo/lzo.mk | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
package/lzo/lzo.mk +4 -1
@@ -4,11 +4,14 @@ # ################################################################################ -LZO_VERSION = 2.06 +LZO_VERSION = 2.07 LZO_SITE = http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/download LZO_LICENSE = GPLv2+ LZO_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING LZO_INSTALL_STAGING = YES +# Out libtool patch does not apply to bundled ltmain.sh since it's too new. +# Run autoreconf to regenerate ltmain.sh. +LZO_AUTORECONF = YES $(eval $(autotools-package)) $(eval $(host-autotools-package))
Signature · 1 line
2.0.0
Thomas Petazzoni
AppliedPATCH v2 1/1 lzo: security bump to version 2.07
Dear Baruch Siach,
Quoted 6 lines · Baruch Siach
Fixes CVE-2014-4607.
Signed-off-by Baruch Siach <[email protected]>---
v2:
Rephrase the comment explaining the need for AUTORECONF (Peter).
Applied, thanks.
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH v2 1/1 lzo: security bump to version 2.07
In reply to Baruch SiachQuoted 15 lines · On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:47:51 +0300 Baruch Siach <[email protected]> wrote:
Fixes CVE-2014-4607.
Signed-off-by Baruch Siach <[email protected]>---
v2:
Rephrase the comment explaining the need for AUTORECONF (Peter).--- package/lzo/lzo.mk | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)package/lzo/lzo.mk +0
-0
package/lzo/lzo.mk line 12
Quoted 10 lines
package/lzo/lzo.mk +2
-1@@ -4,11 +4,14 @@ # ################################################################################ -LZO_VERSION = 2.06 +LZO_VERSION = 2.07 LZO_SITE = http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/download LZO_LICENSE = GPLv2+ LZO_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING LZO_INSTALL_STAGING = YES +# Out libtool patch does not apply to bundled ltmain.sh since it's too new.
s/out/our/
Two things mentioned in sentence, which of them is "too new"?
try: "Our libtool patch is too new to apply to the bundled ltmain.sh"
Quoted 5 lines
package/lzo/lzo.mk +2
-0+# Run autoreconf to regenerate ltmain.sh. +LZO_AUTORECONF = YES $(eval $(autotools-package)) $(eval $(host-autotools-package))
PATCH v2 1/1 lzo: security bump to version 2.07
Hi Mike,
Quoted 21 lines · Mike Zick
Quoted 18 lines · On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:47:51 +0300 Baruch Siach <[email protected]> wrote:
Fixes CVE-2014-4607.
Signed-off-by Baruch Siach <[email protected]>---
v2:
Rephrase the comment explaining the need for AUTORECONF (Peter).--- package/lzo/lzo.mk | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)package/lzo/lzo.mk +0
-0@@ -4,11 +4,14 @@ # ################################################################################
Quoted 8 lines
package/lzo/lzo.mk line 12
Quoted 7 lines
package/lzo/lzo.mk +2
-1-LZO_VERSION = 2.06 +LZO_VERSION = 2.07 LZO_SITE = http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/download LZO_LICENSE = GPLv2+ LZO_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING LZO_INSTALL_STAGING = YES +# Out libtool patch does not apply to bundled ltmain.sh since it's too new.s/out/our/
Thomas has fixed this when applying the patch.
Quoted 3 lines
Two things mentioned in sentence, which of them is "too new"?
try: "Our libtool patch is too new to apply to the bundled
ltmain.sh"
Actually this is the other way around. ltmain.sh is new and our patch doesn't apply anymore. The lzo bump patch as already been applied (commit 7001f391eef29). Is it worth a follow-up patch?
Thanks for reviewing,
baruch
Signature · 3 lines
http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -