They accepted mariadb 10.11.6 as a proposed update and I rebuilt postfix again.
Updated packages (and the first ones also, note the slightly different revision number) at the same location: https://kitterman.com/debian/ I'm not sure if you'll need to upgrade your mariadb packages. If so, they can currently be found in incoming: http://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd/pool/main/m/mariadb/ After the next dinstall they will be available in the bookworm-proposed updates repository. For incoming, you'll need to wget the binaries and use dpkg to install them. For bookworm-proposed-updates, you can use apt with an appropriate entry in your sources.list. Please test and let me know how it goes: Thanks, Scott K On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 3:39:43 PM EST Richard Rosner wrote: > Good to know. Thanks. > > > Am Dienstag, 16. Januar 2024 21:00 CET, schrieb Scott Kitterman > <deb...@kitterman.com>: So, the magic needed to build the new update > exceeds my grasp, but it's debian/changelog discusses fixing regressions. > On that basis, I think the thing to do is reassign the bug to mariadb and > mark it as affecting postfix. I'll also bring it to the stable release > manager's attention. > > Scott K > > On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 2:36:23 PM EST Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Excellent. On that basis, I think blaming mariadb for the regression is > > appropriate. I see there's another mariadb update pending. If would up for > > another test, I'd like to see if that update solves the problem. I'll > > build another set of packages against that and if that works, then we just > > need to make sure we get that update accepted and rebuild postfix. > > > > Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
