Bug 666843

Summary: libical - crash in comp_subject
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: ritz <rkhadgar>
Component: libicalAssignee: Matthew Barnes <mbarnes>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Desktop QE <desktop-qa-list>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 6.0CC: mcrha, tpelka
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Patch
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-05-13 09:12:36 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 666326, 666916    
Attachments:
Description Flags
patch based on upstream none

Description ritz 2011-01-03 11:57:58 UTC 
Created attachment 471466 [details]
patch based on upstream

Description of problem:
allow control of how unknown parameters in properties are handled.


Additional info:
patch required for 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/process_bug.cgi
Comment 1 RHEL Program Management 2011-01-07 16:03:18 UTC 
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated
in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to
address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to
ask your support representative to propose this request, if
appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat
Enterprise Linux. If you would like it considered as an
exception in the current release, please ask your support
representative.
Comment 2 Milan Crha 2011-01-17 10:20:53 UTC 
What about rebasing libical in RHEL to 0.46, rather than such a large patch? The "patched required for" is bug #666326.
Comment 3 ritz 2011-01-17 13:34:16 UTC 
Hi @Milan

  sounds fair to me. Would close quite a few "bugs", I have filled against libical.
Comment 4 Milan Crha 2013-05-13 09:12:36 UTC 
The libical rebase is also asked at bug #664329, thus I'm marking this as a duplicate of it.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 664329 ***