This is an automatically created tracking bug! It was created to ensure that one or more security vulnerabilities are fixed in affected versions of epel-all. For comments that are specific to the vulnerability please use bugs filed against the "Security Response" product referenced in the "Blocks" field. For more information see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security/TrackingBugs When submitting as an update, use the fedpkg template provided in the next comment(s). This will include the bug IDs of this tracking bug as well as the relevant top-level CVE bugs. Please also mention the CVE IDs being fixed in the RPM changelog and the fedpkg commit message. NOTE: this issue affects multiple supported versions of Fedora EPEL. While only one tracking bug has been filed, please correct all affected versions at the same time. If you need to fix the versions independent of each other, you may clone this bug as appropriate.
Use the following template to for the 'fedpkg update' request to submit an update for this issue as it contains the top-level parent bug(s) as well as this tracking bug. This will ensure that all associated bugs get updated when new packages are pushed to stable. ===== # bugfix, security, enhancement, newpackage (required) type=security # low, medium, high, urgent (required) severity=medium # testing, stable request=testing # Bug numbers: 1234,9876 bugs=1836226,1836228 # Description of your update notes=Security fix for [PUT CVEs HERE] # Enable request automation based on the stable/unstable karma thresholds autokarma=True stable_karma=3 unstable_karma=-3 # Automatically close bugs when this marked as stable close_bugs=True # Suggest that users restart after update suggest_reboot=False ====== Additionally, you may opt to use the bodhi web interface to submit updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/new
This package has changed maintainer in the Fedora. Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component.
(In reply to Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions from comment #2) > This package has changed maintainer in the Fedora. > Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component. Not on me, FreeRDP is not in EPEL but in the main RHEL product: http://vault.centos.org/7.8.2003/updates/Source/SPackages/freerdp-2.0.0-4.rc4.el7_8.src.rpm
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1837623 ***
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #3) > (In reply to Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions from comment #2) > > This package has changed maintainer in the Fedora. > > Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component. > > Not on me, FreeRDP is not in EPEL but in the main RHEL product: > > http://vault.centos.org/7.8.2003/updates/Source/SPackages/freerdp-2.0.0-4.rc4.el7_8.src.rpm There is freerdp in EPEL-6 and freerdp1.2 in EPEL-7. Those are the versions what should be checked and fixed if needed. This should not have been re-assigned to RHEL at all. Michael, I don't think it's good idea to use one epel-all tracker if package names are different in each version.
(In reply to Tomas Hoger from comment #6) > (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #3) > > (In reply to Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions from comment #2) > > > This package has changed maintainer in the Fedora. > > > Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component. > > > > Not on me, FreeRDP is not in EPEL but in the main RHEL product: > > > > http://vault.centos.org/7.8.2003/updates/Source/SPackages/freerdp-2.0.0-4.rc4.el7_8.src.rpm > > There is freerdp in EPEL-6 and freerdp1.2 in EPEL-7. Those are the versions > what should be checked and fixed if needed. This should not have been > re-assigned to RHEL at all. > > Michael, I don't think it's good idea to use one epel-all tracker if package > names are different in each version. Sorry for the confusion, I'll be more careful about epel-all trackers