This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Should we have a 2.29.1 point release ?
- From: Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:19:07 +0200
- Subject: Re: Should we have a 2.29.1 point release ?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1f0c2746-a030-6c7b-2b3c-ae2790728cbd@redhat.com>
On 14.08.2017 18:48, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I realise that the 2.29 release has only just happened, but it seems
> that several important bug fixes have gone into the 2.29 branch, and
> I was wondering whether they were enough to justify a 2.29.1 point
> release.
>
> What do people think ?
please could you backport the fix for PR binutils/21820? applies cleanly, and
tested in the Debian/Ubuntu system binutils package.
Somebody (Gentoo?) is also fuzz-testing binutils, generating a lot of CVE
reports. Should these fixes be backported to the branch as well? I usually see
them with the Debian CVE imports at
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/binutils
Thanks, Matthias