On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 18:38:56 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2013-03-31 Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 14:35:56 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > Could you please remove gnutls28 3.0.22-3 from *unstable* to make it
> > > possible to start testing the transition?
>
>
On 2013-03-31 Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 14:35:56 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Could you please remove gnutls28 3.0.22-3 from *unstable* to make it
> > possible to start testing the transition?
> We don't handle unstable. You'll have to file a bug against
> ftp.debian.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 14:35:56 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Could you please remove gnutls28 3.0.22-3 from *unstable* to make it
> possible to start testing the transition?
>
We don't handle unstable. You'll have to file a bug against
ftp.debian.org for that.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
On 2013-03-20 Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2013-03-19 Andreas Metzler wrote:
> [...]
> > Find attached a proposed patch. Its rather obvious downside is that it
> > will break on ports, due to using a negative list ("all except") where
> > possible and a positive list else:
> [...]
> Having slept
On 2013-03-19 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> Find attached a proposed patch. Its rather obvious downside is that it
> will break on ports, due to using a negative list ("all except") where
> possible and a positive list else:
[...]
Having slept over it I realize this is no problem at all. - Ports
On 2013-03-19 Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Find attached a proposed patch.
diff -Nru gnutls26-2.12.20/debian/changelog gnutls26-2.12.20/debian/changelog
--- gnutls26-2.12.20/debian/changelog 2013-02-04 19:44:26.0 +0100
+++ gnutls26-2.12.20/debian/changelog 2013-03-19 19:54:02.0
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 20:06:38 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Find attached a proposed patch.
Forgot the attachment?
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 2013-03-18 Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 19:26:10 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> On 2013-03-17 Julien Cristau wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 16:00:29 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> [...]
2. If armel armhf mipsel break due to --disable-largefile stop using
--
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 19:26:10 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2013-03-17 Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 16:00:29 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> [...]
> > > 2. If armel armhf mipsel break due to --disable-largefile stop using
> > > --disable-largefile there and stop provi
On 2013-03-17 Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 16:00:29 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> > 2. If armel armhf mipsel break due to --disable-largefile stop using
> > --disable-largefile there and stop providing guile-gnutls on these
> > archs.
> OK I think I'm confused. How wou
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 16:00:29 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2013-02-23 Julien Cristau wrote:
> > The plan seems ok to me in general.
>
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
> > > +# workaround for guile testsuite failure.
> > > +ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_BUIL
On 2013-02-23 Julien Cristau wrote:
> The plan seems ok to me in general.
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > +# workaround for guile testsuite failure.
> > +ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_BUILD_ARCH),armel armhf mipsel))
> > + DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_FLAGS += --disable-la
On 2013-03-02 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> However generally speaking I don't think pulling guile-gnutls just to
> get rid of --disable-largefile on armel, armhf and mipsel is necessary,
> gnutls versions before 2.12.10-1 were built without large file support
> even on i386.
Adding a (pretty we
Hi,
Andreas Metzler skribis:
> @*Ludovic*: To give you some context, we are planning to pull
> gnutls28 from wheezy. If we also stopped shipping guile-gnutls instead
> of proving it from gnutls 2.x again we could a) get rid of a package
> without reverse dependencies and b) do without building g
On 2013-03-01 Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Find attached a proposed patch to build both guile-gnutls and
>> gnutls-bin from gnutls26 instead of gnutls28 for wheezy. Would this be
>> acceptable for an unstable upload targeted for testing?
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Find attached a proposed patch to build both guile-gnutls and
> gnutls-bin from gnutls26 instead of gnutls28 for wheezy. Would this be
> acceptable for an unstable upload targeted for testing? Afterwards
> gnutls28 could be pulled fr
On 2013-02-24 Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 19:33:14 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Judging from the fact that 2.12.20 tarball does not include
>> largefile.m4 I guess the configure option is not necessary in 2.12.20.
>> - If you prefer to I can try without.
> So you're sayi
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 19:33:14 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Judging from the fact that 2.12.20 tarball does not include
> largefile.m4 I guess the configure option is not necessary in 2.12.20.
> - If you prefer to I can try without.
>
So you're saying gnutls26 currently is built for 32bit of
On 2013-02-23 Julien Cristau wrote:
> The plan seems ok to me in general.
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> +# workaround for guile testsuite failure.
>> +ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_BUILD_ARCH),armel armhf mipsel))
>> +DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_FLAGS += --disable-larg
The plan seems ok to me in general.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> +# workaround for guile testsuite failure.
> +ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_BUILD_ARCH),armel armhf mipsel))
> + DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_FLAGS += --disable-largefile
> +endif
> +
Disabling lfs because o
On 2013-02-20 Dominique Dumont wrote:
> Le dimanche 10 février 2013 16:26:40, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
PS: My first idea was to simply pull gnutls28, providing guile-gnutls
and gnutls-bin from gnutls26 again. However there is a reverse
dependency (pan) on libgnutls28 in testing now
Le dimanche 10 février 2013 16:26:40, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
> >> PS: My first idea was to simply pull gnutls28, providing guile-gnutls
> >> and gnutls-bin from gnutls26 again. However there is a reverse
> >> dependency (pan) on libgnutls28 in testing nowadays. Pan is not
> >> distributable curr
On 2013-02-10 Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:54:52 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > sadly CVE-2013-0169 also (see 699891) applies to gnutls28.
[...]
>> PS: My first idea was to simply pull gnutls28, providing guile-gnutls
>> and gnutls-bin from gnutls26 again. However there is
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:54:52 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> sadly CVE-2013-0169 also (see 699891) applies to gnutls28.
> I have just uploaded gnutls28_3.0.22-3 to unstable, pretty much with
> the same set of fixes as gnutls26 2.12.20-4 to unstable. I am not
> sure how you would pr
24 matches
Mail list logo
