Debian: DSA-3548-2: samba regression update

    Date14 Apr 2016
    CategoryDebian
    36
    Posted ByLinuxSecurity Advisories
    The upgrade to Samba 4.2 issued as DSA-3548-1 introduced a packaging regression causing an additional dependency on the samba binary package for the samba-libs, samba-common-bin, python-samba and samba-vfs-modules binary packages. Updated packages are now available to address this
    
    - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Debian Security Advisory DSA-3548-2                   This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    https://www.debian.org/security/                     Salvatore Bonaccorso
    April 14, 2016                        https://www.debian.org/security/faq
    - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Package        : samba
    Debian Bug     : 820947
    
    The upgrade to Samba 4.2 issued as DSA-3548-1 introduced a packaging
    regression causing an additional dependency on the samba binary package
    for the samba-libs, samba-common-bin, python-samba and samba-vfs-modules
    binary packages. Updated packages are now available to address this
    problem.
    
    For the stable distribution (jessie), this problem has been fixed in
    version 2:4.2.10+dfsg-0+deb8u2.
    
    We recommend that you upgrade your samba packages.
    
    Further information about Debian Security Advisories, how to apply
    these updates to your system and frequently asked questions can be
    found at: https://www.debian.org/security/
    
    Mailing list: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
    
    You are not authorised to post comments.

    Comments powered by CComment

    LinuxSecurity Poll

    What do you think of the articles on LinuxSecurity?

    No answer selected. Please try again.
    Please select either existing option or enter your own, however not both.
    Please select minimum 0 answer(s) and maximum 3 answer(s).
    /main-polls/24-what-do-you-think-of-the-quality-of-the-articles-on-linuxsecurity?task=poll.vote&format=json
    24
    radio
    [{"id":"87","title":"Excellent, don't change a thing!","votes":"4","type":"x","order":"1","pct":57.14,"resources":[]},{"id":"88","title":"Should be more technical","votes":"2","type":"x","order":"2","pct":28.57,"resources":[]},{"id":"89","title":"Should include more HOWTOs","votes":"1","type":"x","order":"3","pct":14.29,"resources":[]}]["#ff5b00","#4ac0f2","#b80028","#eef66c","#60bb22","#b96a9a","#62c2cc"]["rgba(255,91,0,0.7)","rgba(74,192,242,0.7)","rgba(184,0,40,0.7)","rgba(238,246,108,0.7)","rgba(96,187,34,0.7)","rgba(185,106,154,0.7)","rgba(98,194,204,0.7)"]350
    bottom200

    We use cookies to provide and improve our services. By using our site, you consent to our Cookie Policy.