Hi, On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 06:13:29PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > > On 21. 9. 2022, at 20:35, Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: > > > > Control: tags -1 + bullseye > > > > On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 13:47 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > >> nmu bind-dyndb-ldap_11.6-3 . ANY . bullseye . -m "rebuild for > >> bind9_9.16.33-1~deb11u1" > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> after the bind9_9.16.33-1~deb11u1 is release to bullseye-security, > >> the > >> bind-dyndb-ldap plugin will require binNMU. > >> > > > > We can do that - once the packages are in p-u, because p-u chroots > > don't pull in packages from the security archive - but it will mean > > that users won't get the binNMUs until the next point release, which > > probably isn't until November now. > > > > Is that OK? > > > Adding Paul, Salvatore and Timo into the bunch. > > I honestly don't know because I don't use this package, but I think > it might prevent the users using the bind-dyndb-ldap users from > upgrading the bind9 package. > > Should I then prepare a NMU for bullseye-security? > > Looks like only viable solution long-term would be to build all the > bind plugins from the src:bind9 package, but it's too late for bullseye.
Why is this binNMU actually needed? bind9-dyndb-ldap has the following: Depends: bind9-libs (>= 1:9.16.15), libc6 (>= 2.14), libkrb5-3 (>= 1.6.dfsg.2), libldap-2.4-2 (>= 2.4.7), libuuid1 (>= 2.16), bind9 (>= 9.11) which is satisifed as well after the bind9 update via bullseye-security, and updates are possible. Do your request imply that the relationship would be too lax? Regards, Salvatore
