Your message dated Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:06:35 +0100
with message-id <1333490795.8980.12.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#622134: transition: openssl 1.0.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #622134,
regarding transition: openssl 1.0.0
to be marked as done.
This
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 22:10 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:56:40PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 22:08:57 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >
> > > So I currently see those in testing:
> > > - ace: There have been a number of gcc-4.6 updates, I gave
> >
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:56:40PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 22:08:57 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > So I currently see those in testing:
> > - ace: There have been a number of gcc-4.6 updates, I gave
> > it back to see if the ICE has been fixed or not.
>
> Still d
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 22:08:57 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> So I currently see those in testing:
> - ace: There have been a number of gcc-4.6 updates, I gave
> it back to see if the ICE has been fixed or not.
Still does. Apparently using gcc-4.4 would work around it, there's a
patch to do tha
- ace: There have been a number of gcc-4.6 updates, I gave
it back to see if the ICE has been fixed or not.
The build that resulted from the most recent give-back
failed but it did so in a VERY strange manner.
It claimed to install libzzlib-dev and zlib1g-dev yet it
failed to link against t
t; > This is to track the transition of openssl 1.0.0. Most of the
> > problems are related to dropping SSLv2 support.
> >
> openssl098 is still kept in testing by:
> - ace (ICE on armel)
> - beid (RC-buggy, candidate for removal)
> - ipsec-tools (#619687 #643570, has
Thu, 2011-10-06 at 20:46 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 16:02:14 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> >
> > This i
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 02:46:34 +0100, peter green wrote:
> >openssl098 is still kept in testing by:
> >- ace (ICE on armel)
> Taking a look at this one
Thanks. IIRC it was similar to the one affecting shibboleth-sp2, which
had to revert to using gcc-4.4 instead of 4.6.
> >- beid (RC-buggy, ca
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 22:23:46 +0200, Andreas Noteng wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 20:46 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > - transgui (#632532, candidate for removal)
>
> I'm sorry, but rebuilding transgui with the current fpc creates a bug
> which makes it almost useless, at least on amd64. I'
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 20:46 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> - transgui (#632532, candidate for removal)
I'm sorry, but rebuilding transgui with the current fpc creates a bug
which makes it almost useless, at least on amd64. I've sent one more
mail to upstream, but it looks like this one might have
Hi Rene,
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:10, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
> That was all what was to prove. No one denied that sid might have
> picked up 1.0.0, but testing definitely isn't (and this isdnutils
> keeps openssl 0.9.8 in testing as the idnutils *there* *does* depend
> on 0.9.8)
It seems tha
openssl098 is still kept in testing by:
- ace (ICE on armel)
Taking a look at this one
- beid (RC-buggy, candidate for removal)
- ipsec-tools (#619687 #643570, has reverse dependencies)
- isakmpd (#622051, candidate for removal)
This bug has had a patch for several months, but the maintainer has
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 09:02:31PM +0800, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
> I'm not in a mood for this kind of "discussion". I can only reiterate
> that there is nothing I can do. Packages built after openssl 1.0.0 had
> become the standard are fine and I have no control over older
I'm not in a mood for this kind of "discussion". I can only reiterate
that there is nothing I can do. Packages built after openssl 1.0.0 had
become the standard are fine and I have no control over older binary
packages that are already released.
>> I can only repeat
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 05:17:13PM +0800, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
> FWIW, http://packages.debian.org/sid/ipppd lists libssl0.9.8 for alpha,
> armhf, hppa, m68k, sh4 and libssl1.0.0 for the rest. I checked the
> other binary packages as well.
Totally irrelevant.
sid != testing.
http://packages.debi
Adam,
thank you for your comment.
FWIW, http://packages.debian.org/sid/ipppd lists libssl0.9.8 for alpha,
armhf, hppa, m68k, sh4 and libssl1.0.0 for the rest. I checked the
other binary packages as well.
I can only repeat that there is nothing inherently in isdnutils to force
dependency on libs
ibpcap0.8 (>= 0.9.8), libssl0.9.8
(>= 0.9.8m-1)
*No* isdnutils packages in testing depend on openssl 1.0.0.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.or
On 07.10.2011 02:46, Julien Cristau wrote:
openssl098 is still kept in testing by:
[...]
- isdnutils (#618228, has reverse dependencies)
Julien,
thank you for the heads up. I maintain (to the best of my limited
abilities) the isdnutils package in D
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 16:02:14 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> This is to track the transition of openssl 1.0.0. Most of the
> problems are related to d
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 622134 by 620777
Bug #622134 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 1.0.0
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 622134: 620777
> block 622134 by 620893
Bug #622134 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl 1.0.0
Was b
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
This is to track the transition of openssl 1.0.0. Most of the
problems are related to dropping SSLv2 support.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 12:45:03AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 00:27:51 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It
> > changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible
> > with the old one, a
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 00:27:51 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It
> changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible
> with the old one, and you should be able to rebuild everything
> against the new version.
>
So t
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:42:20PM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I confirm that some packages still use SSLv2[1][2].
> I suggest that we do binNMU about openssl 1.0.
I'm sure we'll do binNMUs soon. But I think the release
team might want to wait until 1.0.0 has reached testing.
Kur
Hi,
2011/3/9 Kurt Roeckx :
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:11:15PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> * Kurt Roeckx , 2011-02-13, 00:27:
>> >I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It
>> >changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible
>> >with the old one, and you should
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 23:32:17 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:30:23PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > We should keep both SONAMES in sid and wheezy for now, IMO. So I think
> > that means first upload openssl 1.0.0 as a new source package without
> &g
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:30:23PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> We should keep both SONAMES in sid and wheezy for now, IMO. So I think
> that means first upload openssl 1.0.0 as a new source package without
> the -dev (this can probably happen now). Then when that's in testing
&g
package for it in any case.
>
We should keep both SONAMES in sid and wheezy for now, IMO. So I think
that means first upload openssl 1.0.0 as a new source package without
the -dev (this can probably happen now). Then when that's in testing
and you get an ack, switch the -dev from 0.9.8
Hi,
I'm still waiting for a reply to my questions. If I don't hear
from you I will upload it to unstable a week from now.
Kurt
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 03:07:47PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm still waiting for a reply.
>
>
> Kurt
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:27:51AM +0100, Kur
* Kurt Roeckx , 2011-02-13, 00:27:
I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It changes
soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible with the old
one, and you should be able to rebuild everything against the new
version.
Support for SSLv2 has been disabled in opens
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 11:11:15PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx , 2011-02-13, 00:27:
> >I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It
> >changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible
> >with the old one, and you should be able to rebuild everything
> >a
Hi,
I'm still waiting for a reply.
Kurt
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:27:51AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It
> changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible
> with the old one, and you should be able to rebuild
Hi,
I would like to upload version 1.0.0(d) to unstable soon. It
changes soname, but as far as I know the API is still compatible
with the old one, and you should be able to rebuild everything
against the new version.
I wonder if I need to upload an openssl098 source package at
the same time to
33 matches
Mail list logo
