#497471 sarge images have syslinux binaries without source

#497471#5
Date:
2008-09-01 22:29:05 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

debian-cd does embededd a copy of the syslinux binary (see #497270).

because the embedded copy wasn't synced with the archive at the time
when sarge was released, sarge images are shipping a binary without
having a source (in the dedicated source images).

sarge is using syslinux 2.04, a version which is not even available
anymore on ftp.debian.org.

syslinux is licensed under GPL-2+, which means you either need to ship
both binaries and sources at the same time, or with the note on how to
get the source etc. pp.

please uploade the debian sources of syslinux 2.04-1 (e.g. from morgue
on merkel).

Regards,
Daniel

#497471#10
Date:
2008-12-03 19:59:42 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

any progress on this?

Regards,
Daniel

#497471#15
Date:
2008-12-14 08:34:17 UTC
From:
To:
Hello release managers.

Please take a look on bug #497471. This bug is related to sarge images on
cdimage.debian.org, and I believe it is not blocker for Lenny.

#497471#20
Date:
2008-12-14 08:46:39 UTC
From:
To:
Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:

first of all, there's no point for a lenny-ignore tag as the bug only
affects sarge images. lenny-ignore tags are only used for bugs that are
present in lenny.

second, serious bugs against cdimage.d.o do *per se* not block a release
anyway.

#497471#25
Date:
2008-12-14 08:55:31 UTC
From:
To:
Daniel Baumann wrote:
At least, our official page [1] thinks different.

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/other/testing.html

#497471#30
Date:
2008-12-14 09:01:33 UTC
From:
To:
Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:

because it doesn't distinguish between package related bugs and
infrastructure related bugs, that's left up to the attentive reader.

#497471#39
Date:
2010-11-13 05:20:25 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,
Is this bug still alive?

#497471#46
Date:
2012-07-05 16:49:02 UTC
From:
To:
Closing since Sarge has been out of support for a long time.
#497471#51
Date:
2012-07-05 19:15:16 UTC
From:
To:
Looking further into this, the missing source package appears to be
syslinux 2.04-1

Unfortunately this doesn't appear in:

http://snapshot.debian.org/package/syslinux/

Daniel, do you have any ideas where else we might find the missing
source package?

Colin

#497471#56
Date:
2012-07-09 00:47:52 UTC
From:
To:
reopen 497471
thanks

first, please do cc bug submitters if you care for an answer, the bts
does not notify submitters when you write to a bug.

second, reopening the bug: it doesn't matter if debian supports sarge or
not; the images with missing sources are still distributed from
cdimage.debian.org.

and finally, i'm afraid i do not have any copy of 2.04 of syslinux.

#497471#65
Date:
2013-04-08 23:23:39 UTC
From:
To:
Releases older than squeeze are no longer on cdimage.debian.org.

Best wishes,
Mike

#497471#74
Date:
2013-04-12 12:39:35 UTC
From:
To:
#497471#83
Date:
2015-11-13 10:28:04 UTC
From:
To:
For what it's worth, syslinux-2.04 source is available here:

https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/2.xx/

This is a list files shown for version 2.04:

   syslinux-2.04.lsm               20-Oct-2011 19:13  3.0K
   syslinux-2.04.lsm.sign          20-Oct-2011 19:13  836
   syslinux-2.04.tar.bz2           20-Oct-2011 19:08  309K
   syslinux-2.04.tar.gz            20-Oct-2011 19:08  379K
   syslinux-2.04.tar.sign          20-Oct-2011 19:08  836
   syslinux-2.04.tar.xz            20-Oct-2011 19:08  257K
   syslinux-2.04.zip               20-Oct-2011 19:13  462K
   syslinux-2.04.zip.sign          20-Oct-2011 19:13  836

Hopefully there's a way of verifying that this is the correct source for
what was shipped with the Sarge images.

GPL license compliance requires that users be able to get the source for the
binary upon request -- so I believe what's required to handle this bug is
verification and documentation.  I'd like to think that can be done with
some kind of errata file placed /next to/ the Sarge images in the archive
rather than having to rebuild the Sarge images themselves.

#497471#88
Date:
2015-11-13 17:32:40 UTC
From:
To:
ACK, thanks for the suggestion. I could also check the files that were
in use and compare to the stuff on snapshot.d.o for the dates in
question.  It would be very hard to rebuild the sarge images now after
such a long time, and I've not got much confidence we could make them
work...

#497471#93
Date:
2016-10-07 18:08:43 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

Your parcel has arrived at October 03. Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.
Please, open email attachment to print shipment label.

Yours trully,
Fernando Davenport,
FedEx Operation Manager.

#497471#94
Date:
2016-10-14 11:06:57 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

We could not deliver your parcel.
You can review complete details of your order in the find attached.

Warm regards,
Scott Rose,
Sr. Operation Manager.

#497471#95
Date:
2016-10-17 08:49:38 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

We could not deliver your item.
You can review complete details of your order in the find attached.

Warm regards,
Willard Graves,
Support Manager.

#497471#102
Date:
2016-11-12 05:15:46 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

Your parcel has arrived at November 08. Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.
Delivery Label is attached to this email.

Thank you for choosing FedEx,
Erik Knapp,
Sr. Station Manager.

#497471#109
Date:
2019-03-13 12:33:51 UTC
From:
To:
This bug is reported against a very old version of Debian, please close it.
#497471#114
Date:
2019-03-14 21:22:58 UTC
From:
To:
close 497471


The bug was filed against an old version of Debian and should not be
re-opened since the affected version is no longer in active or extended
support.

#497471#119
Date:
2019-03-14 21:33:22 UTC
From:
To:
reopen 497471
thanks

it doesn't matter if debian supports sarge or
not; the images with missing sources are still distributed from
cdimage.debian.org:

http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/3.1_r0/i386/iso-cd/debian-31r0-i386-netinst.iso

Regards,
Daniel