Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2021, 15:21 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: > Markus Koschany wrote: [...] > > Please feel free to reassign and/or adjust the bug report as necessary. > > I get the following error message from the BTS. Do I need to do > "reassign 982671 unbound1.9" instead? I also got some e

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Markus Koschany wrote: > Hello, > > Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2021, 14:09 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: > > Hi, > > > > #982671 / #982672 is incorrectly reported against the python-unbound > > package. It should instead be against the unbound binary package because > > this functionality is in the u

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Hello, Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2021, 14:09 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: > Hi, > > #982671 / #982672 is incorrectly reported against the python-unbound > package. It should instead be against the unbound binary package because > this functionality is in the unbound daemon. Please feel free to rea

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Markus Koschany wrote: > Hi, > > Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2021, 12:43 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: > [...] > > Hi, > > > > It looks like #982671 / #982672 was assigned by the BTS to src:unbound > > rather than src:unbound1.9. I attempted to re-assign the bug to > > src:unbound1.9 with notfound/fou

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2021, 12:43 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: [...] > Hi, > > It looks like #982671 / #982672 was assigned by the BTS to src:unbound > rather than src:unbound1.9. I attempted to re-assign the bug to > src:unbound1.9 with notfound/found but I don't think that worked since I

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Markus Koschany wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 20.01.2021, 04:32 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: > [...] > > I would be OK with promoting an unbound package based on 1.9.6-2 (the > > last 1.9.x package) to buster, if that's OK with the release team. > > Hello Robert, > > As you know we have had a reques

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Hi Robert, [just small comment below] On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:20:01PM -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote: > Markus Koschany wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > > Am Samstag, den 06.02.2021, 19:46 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: > > [...] > > > Hi, Markus: > > > > > > I'm OK with both of these plans. > > > >

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Markus Koschany wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Am Samstag, den 06.02.2021, 19:46 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: > [...] > > Hi, Markus: > > > > I'm OK with both of these plans. > > > > For the proposed 1.9.6 buster update, can you send me git commits based > > against > > https://salsa.debian.org/dns-te

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Hi Robert, Am Samstag, den 06.02.2021, 19:46 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: [...] > Hi, Markus: > > I'm OK with both of these plans. > > For the proposed 1.9.6 buster update, can you send me git commits based > against > https://salsa.debian.org/dns-team/unbound/-/tree/branches/1.9.0-2_deb10 > ?

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Markus Koschany wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 20.01.2021, 04:32 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: > [...] > > I would be OK with promoting an unbound package based on 1.9.6-2 (the > > last 1.9.x package) to buster, if that's OK with the release team. > > Hello Robert, > > As you know we have had a reques

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Am Mittwoch, den 20.01.2021, 04:32 -0500 schrieb Robert Edmonds: [...] > I would be OK with promoting an unbound package based on 1.9.6-2 (the > last 1.9.x package) to buster, if that's OK with the release team. Hello Robert, As you know we have had a request from users to "resurrect" unbound in

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Hi, On 25/01/2021 10:23, Sylvain Beucler wrote: Reading the exchanges, a few quick questions: - unbound does not seem to maintain any stable/parallel branches. Before we start, does it make sense to bump to 1.9.6/1.10.1, or will we get the same supportability issue (stability+security) right a

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Hi, On 21/01/2021 17:17, Sylvain Beucler wrote: On 20/01/2021 10:32, Robert Edmonds wrote: Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, Robert Edmonds wrote: There is an unfixed issue in Unbound 1.9.0 (#962459 / #973052) that affects some users (I have not been able to reproduce it). Upstream

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Hi, On 20/01/2021 10:32, Robert Edmonds wrote: Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, Robert Edmonds wrote: There is an unfixed issue in Unbound 1.9.0 (#962459 / #973052) that affects some users (I have not been able to reproduce it). Upstream has invested some time in helping the Debian

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, Robert Edmonds wrote: > > There is an unfixed issue in Unbound 1.9.0 (#962459 / #973052) that > > affects some users (I have not been able to reproduce it). Upstream has > > invested some time in helping the Debian maintainers track down > > potential c

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Hi, On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, Robert Edmonds wrote: > There is an unfixed issue in Unbound 1.9.0 (#962459 / #973052) that > affects some users (I have not been able to reproduce it). Upstream has > invested some time in helping the Debian maintainers track down > potential combinations of commits from

Re: Supporting unbound in stretch by upgrading to 1.9

Sylvain Beucler wrote: > Hi Security Team, > > The LTS project would like to keep supporting 'unbound', for which security > support was dropped last May (DSA 4694-1), IIRC due to the risks of > maintaining a version that was not supported upstream anymore. > > The plan we identified is to backpo