On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:34:35 +0100 Timo van Roermund <t...@van-roermund.nl> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Nov 2020 14:25:03 -0800 Bill Wohler <woh...@newt.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for explaining the situation. Sounds like just some bad luck. > > Even so, it would still be good if a mechanism could be created that > > would prevent this from happening in the future. > > Yes, some mechanism to prevent this would be good. I only noticed this > issue after approximately two days and therefore received some e-mails > (too) late. > > > I appreciate your sending the link to the prior package. It made it much > > easier to go back, and now my mail is flowing again.. I've also held the > > package until I see an OpenSSL update. > > I took a different approach and upgraded the openssl and libssl1.1 > packages to version 1.1.1h-1 (from unstable). I did so because I am not > affected by any of the regressions listed at the oppenssl package > tracker (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/openssl). With this approach, I > don't need to take any further manual actions later on (to unhold the > package).
for those stumbling on this via searching, the workaround mentioned above is: create priority for testing: /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/default-release with APT::Default-Release "testing"; add into sources (with your favourite mirror): deb http://ftp.debian.sk/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free apt update and reinstall apt -t unstable install libssl1.1:amd64 -- Michal Páleník
