On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 06:30:35PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> When considering a voting system, there are a few important things to
> consider [1]:
>
> 1- vote-privacy: the fact that a particular voter voted in a particular way
> is not revealed to anyone.
> 2- Receipt-freeness: a voter does
Hi,
A general resolution about voting secrecy has been started. Details about
it are available at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_001
Kurt Roeckx
Debian Project Secretary
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
round 2022-03-20.
Details and results for the vote will be published at:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_002
Please make sure that nominations are sent to (or cc:'d to)
debian-vote, and are cryptographically signed.
Kurt Roeckx
Debian Project Secretary
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
I've put up an initial page about the GR at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_001
I didn't have time yet to properly record all the seconds yet, but
believe the 3 option there all have the required amount of seconds,
and are the only options that reached that. The 3rd option reached
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 11:54:19AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> > I've been reading our new constitution about the discussion period. What
> > I find is this in A.1.1:
> > The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed and
&g
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 01:12:23PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> One easy way for you to do that would be to send a diff to the spacing.
> I could then update my branch and use the typo correction procedure in
> the constitution to get this fixed.
Or we can just leave it to the maintainer of the
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 01:54:36PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> I also believe this advances the end of the discussion period to next
> Thursday (although other actions may advance the end of the discussion
> period further).
I've been reading our new constitution about the discussion period.
I'm proposing the following vote timeline:
Nomination period: Saturday 2022-03-05 - Friday 2022-03-11
Campaigning period: Saturday 2022-03-12 - Friday 2022-04-01
Voting period: Saturday 2022-04-02 - Friday 2022-04-15
The new term will start on 2022-04-21
Kurt
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:44:10PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Pierre-Elliott" == Pierre-Elliott Bécue writes:
>
> Pierre-Elliott> I sponsor the resolution quoted below.
>
> I haven't gone and checked signatures, but unless someone's signature is
> bad or something, I think that
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:06:20AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> 2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional
> amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to obtain
> sufficient project consensus before changing how voting works.
I plan to look at
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:41:51PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:23:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > As of this writing, the tally sheet is still the dummy tally sheet, and
>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:23:35PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> As of this writing, the tally sheet is still the dummy tally sheet, and it
> has not been replaced with the real one.
I don't see a problem. This looks like the real tally sheet:
Hi,
The winner of the General Resolution is:
Choice 1: "Amend resolution process, set maximum discussion period"
The details of the results are available at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
Kurt Roeckx
Debian Project Secretary
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
The winner of the General Resolution is:
Choice 1: "Amend resolution process, set maximum discussion period"
The details of the results are available at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
Kurt Roeckx
Debian Project Secretary
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
This is the first call for votes on the general resolution about
changing the resolution process.
Voting period starts 2022-01-15 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2022-01-28 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on changing the resolution process.
This vote
On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 08:20:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As previously discussed, and given that there has been no further
> discussion, I am calling for a vote on the general resolution on the
> Debian resolution process, using the ballot currently on the web site at
>
Package: devscripts
Version: 2.21.7
Running dch will give me:
dch warning: neither DEBEMAIL nor EMAIL environment variable is set
dch warning: building email address from username and mailname
dch: Did you see those 2 warnings? Press RETURN to continue...
The manual says I can put it in the
On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-12-07 at 19:18 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 10:35:02AM +, Matt Caswell wrote:
> > > topic: Accept PR #16705 into 3.0 subject to the normal review
> > > process
>
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 10:35:02AM +, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Accept PR #16705 into 3.0 subject to the normal review process
-1
>From what I understand, this breaks our provider API. Providers
that work with 3.0.0 will not work when that PR is applied, and
providers that do the same
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 03:50:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 06:52:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:31:42AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Wouter Verhelst writes:
> > >
> > > > aaand t
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:53:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Text of the GR
> > ==
> >
> > The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian
> > constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution
> > requires a 3:1 majority.
> >
> >
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Section 6.3
> ---
>
> Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with:
>
> 1. Resolution process.
>
>The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a
>resolution for vote:
>
>1. Any member of
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:31:42AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>
> > aaand this should've been signed. Good morning.
>
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:50:14AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> >> All this changes my proposal to the below. I would appreciate if my
>
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal
> amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None
> of the above" and fixes two typos.
I've updated the website and changed the start
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 08:19:26AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Timo Röhling writes:
>
> > I was under the impression that this amendment by the original
> > proposer does not require re-sponsoring, and my consent is
> > implicitly assumed unless I choose to object. Am I wrong?
>
> > (If I am,
Hi,
The following vote passed with 6 in favour, 0 against, 0 abstain:
topic: All committers to the main source repository must enable 2 factor
authentication
on GitHub Enterprise when it is moved there
We plan to move all repositories from git.openssl.org to
github.openssl.org which uses Github
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
This is now at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
I did not add any of the corrections, you did not sign them, you
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:09:54AM +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote:
>
> Seconded.
Your message isn't signed.
Kurt
It seems that 6.4.23 actually changed the message to:
configuration requires TLS, but STARTTLS is not permitted because of
authenticated state (PREAUTH). Aborting connection. If your plugin is secure,
you can defeat STARTTLS with --sslproto '' (see manual).
See:
It seems that 6.4.23 actually changed the message to:
configuration requires TLS, but STARTTLS is not permitted because of
authenticated state (PREAUTH). Aborting connection. If your plugin is secure,
you can defeat STARTTLS with --sslproto '' (see manual).
See:
Package: fetchmail
Version: 6.4.22-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
With version 6.4.22-1 and 6.4.23-1 I get the following error:
configuration requires TLS, but STARTTLS is not permitted because of
authenticated state (PREAUTH). Aborting connection. Server permitting, try
--ssl instead (see manual).
Package: fetchmail
Version: 6.4.22-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
With version 6.4.22-1 and 6.4.23-1 I get the following error:
configuration requires TLS, but STARTTLS is not permitted because of
authenticated state (PREAUTH). Aborting connection. Server permitting, try
--ssl instead (see manual).
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 11:23:15AM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> topic: Accept openssl/technical-policies PR#1 - the policy change
> process proposal as of commit 3bccdf6. This will become an official OTC
> policy.
>
> comment: This will implement the formal policy change process so we can
>
-
commit 4ed858ce02d41753b78629e0b908660593f082b6
Author: Kurt Roeckx
Date: Wed Oct 20 09:40:16 2021 +0200
Fix table summary title
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson
GH: #268
commit 825e40e042c3eb67f7c8f865cff7f21a669f989b
Author: Kurt Roeckx
Date: Wed Oct 20 09:50:47 2021 +0200
-
commit 4d8357b7e6fb544f0a618e65d98a9206a2df05f6
Author: Kurt Roeckx
Date: Wed Oct 20 09:31:44 2021 +0200
Update info about FreeBSD and VMS
commit 1628f0f455848c12f365c9bac03bfc30b50e2d86
Author: Kurt Roeckx
Date: Wed Oct 20 09:11
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:07:26AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Accept PR#16725 as a bug fix for backport into 3.0 subject to the
> normal review process
+1
Kurt
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:07:26AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Accept PR#16725 as a bug fix for backport into 3.0 subject to the
> normal review process
So we have various people voting -1. Does someone want to explain
why they vote -1?
Kurt
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:40:59PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 02:50:50PM +0200, Benjamin Hof wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think the following change might be the relevant one:
> >
> > --- a/update-ca-certificates
> > +++ b/update-ca-certificates
> > @@ -164,8
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:40:59PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 02:50:50PM +0200, Benjamin Hof wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think the following change might be the relevant one:
> >
> > --- a/update-ca-certificates
> > +++ b/update-ca-certificates
> > @@ -164,8
Source: cargo
Version: 0.47.0-3
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Can you package a newer version of cargo? The current version
seems to be too old for some things.
Kurt
Source: hitch
Version: 1.7.1-2
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
hitch.c: In function init_dh:
hitch.c:318:2: error: PEM_read_bio_DHparams is
Source: haskell-blogliterately
Version: 0.8.7-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
[12 of 12] Compiling Text.BlogLiterately (
Source: haskell-blogliterately
Version: 0.8.7-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
[12 of 12] Compiling Text.BlogLiterately (
Source: haproxy
Version: 2.2.17-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
src/ssl_sock.c: In function ‘ctx_set_TLSv13_func’:
Source: golang-github-mendersoftware-openssl
Version: 1.1.0-2
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
github.com/mendersoftware/openssl
#
Source: globus-proxy-utils
Version: 7.2-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
make[4]: Entering directory '/<>/test'
FAIL:
Source: globus-gssapi-gsi
Version: 14.17-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
FAIL: gssapi-thread-test-wrapper
> I would like to also discuss code coverage, and in particular adding tests
> for any new code that is added.
It was always my understanding that our policy was that tests need
to be added. We have a checkbox in the pull request to indicate
that it's been done. But maybe it's not written down
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 07:43:26AM +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:
>
> This is a known issue, see https://github.com/erlang/otp/issues/4577
> and I'm afraid the fix will come only with the new major Erlang 25.
> It's expected to be released in May 2022.
As far as I know, there are 2 issues:
- The
Source: globus-gsi-openssl-error
Version: 4.3-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
not ok 4 - Match reference output
# Failed test 'Match
Source: git-crypt
Version: 0.6.0-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
crypto-openssl-10.cpp: In constructor
Source: freerdp2
Version: 2.3.0+dfsg1-2
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
/<>/winpr/libwinpr/utils/ssl.c
/<>/winpr/libwinpr/utils/ssl.c: In
Source: freelan
Version: 2.2-3
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
Source: freelan
Version: 2.2-3
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
Source: erlang
Version: 24.0.6+dfsg-2
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
pkey.c:76:14: error: implicit declaration of function FIPS_mode
Source: foxeye_0.12.1-3
Version: 0.12.1-3
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
openssl.c:450:5: warning: implicit declaration of function
Source: erlang-p1-tls
Version: 1.1.13-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
EUnit
module
Source: dovecot
Version: 2.3.16+dfsg1-3
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
test_get_info_pw_encrypted
Source: crda
Version: 4.14+git20191112.9856751-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
reglib.c: In function reglib_verify_db_signature:
Source: crda
Version: 4.14+git20191112.9856751-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
reglib.c: In function reglib_verify_db_signature:
Source: clickhouse
Version: 18.16.1+ds-7.2
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
11: + openssl dhparam -out
Source: coturn
Version: 4.5.2-3
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
src/client/ns_turn_msg.c: In function stun_produce_integrity_key_str:
Source: clevis
Version: 18-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
In file included from ../src/pins/sss/sss.c:41:
../src/pins/sss/sss.c: In
Package: lbeibiou
Version: 3.61.2-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
During an upgrade, I get the following:
dpkg: considering deconfiguration of lebiniou-data, which would be broken by
installation of lebiniou ...
dpkg: yes, will deconfigure lebiniou-data (broken by lebiniou)
Preparing to unpack
Package: lbeibiou
Version: 3.61.2-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
During an upgrade, I get the following:
dpkg: considering deconfiguration of lebiniou-data, which would be broken by
installation of lebiniou ...
dpkg: yes, will deconfigure lebiniou-data (broken by lebiniou)
Preparing to unpack
Source: cjose
Version: 0.6.1+dfsg1-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
jwk.c: In function _cjose_jwk_rsa_get:
jwk.c:58:5: error: RSA_get0_key
Source: cfengine3
Version: 3.15.2-3
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
In file included from hash.c:33:
./hash.h:64:28: error: unknown type
Source: certmonger
Version: 0.79.13-3
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
../../src/util-o.c: In function util_EVP_PKEY_id:
Source: boxbackup
Version: 0.13~~git20200326.g8e8b63c-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
NOTICE: Running test bbackupd in debug mode...
Source: boxbackup
Version: 0.13~~git20200326.g8e8b63c-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
NOTICE: Running test bbackupd in debug mode...
Source: botan
Version: 2.18.1+dfsg-3
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
Thread_Pool ran 100 tests all ok
tls:
3DES ECDH ran 2 tests 2 FAILED
Source: boinc
Version: 7.16.17+dfsg-2
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with the
following error:
In file included from /usr/include/openssl/x509.h:29,
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
We would like to transition to OpenSSL 3.0.0. It's currently in
experimental. It has an soname change, so the binary packages got
renamed and binNMUs will be required.
We did a
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
We would like to transition to OpenSSL 3.0.0. It's currently in
experimental. It has an soname change, so the binary packages got
renamed and binNMUs will be required.
We did a
Source: azure-uamqp-python
Version: 1.4.1-1
Severity: important
Tags: bookworm sid
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Hi,
Your package is failing to build using OpenSSL 3.0 with errors
like:
Source: autobahn-cpp
Version: 17.5.1+git7cc5d37-2.1
Severity: important
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: ftbfs-3.0
Your package is building using -Werror and is using functions that
have been deprecated in OpenSSL 3.0. The log contains errors like:
In file included from
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 06:51:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Below is an initial proposal for a revision to the GR and Technical
> Committee processes, offered to start a project discussion.
You've made various changes to your draft since. Can you send an
updated draft?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 09:42:01PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
> Hello Matt,
>
> The link
> https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/cryptographic-module-validation-program/modules-in-processmodules-in-process-list
> (You can see the official listing for the submission *here*) seems to be
> not working
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 06:37:42PM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 18:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 07:14:51PM +1000, Dr Paul Dale wrote:
> > > Accept PR#16594 into master subject to the normal review process
> > >
> >
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:08:40AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Increase the default security level from 1 to 2 in master
+1
Kurt
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 07:14:51PM +1000, Dr Paul Dale wrote:
> Accept PR#16594 into master subject to the normal review process
>
>
>
> This doesn't meet the "is a standard" requirement but it is in use and we
> have the implementation. It just isn't exposed.
Can you describe where it is in
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:13:13AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Allow the restart of merging of non-breaking small features to the
> master
>branch
+1
Kurt
can make a
> decision - but that would be accepting one PR over another PR. We have had
> "competing" PRs regularly - and we then vote on the alternatives - where it
> is clear what the alternatives are. A single PR vote is about that PR.
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 8:07 AM Kurt Roeckx
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 02:19:08PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Accept PR#16286 into 3.0 subject to the normal review process
-1
Do we need some general policy for such changes after the 3.0
release?
Kurt
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:53:14PM +0300, Nicola Tuveri wrote:
> On the other hand, 1.1.1 is not in its last year of support so it is not
> limited to security fixes only.
>
> The commits which this vote proposes to revert fixed a bug that produced
> invalid output from functions with a clear
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Revert the commits merged from PR #16027 in 1.1.1
+1
Kurt
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 07:21:57AM +1000, Tim Hudson wrote:
>
> This isn't about the OTC meeting itself - this is about the details of the
> topic actually being captured within the PR.
> You need to actually look at the PR to form a view. And we do add to the
> PRs during the discussion if
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:11:53AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: OTC approve the release of 3.0 beta2 on Thursday 29th July
+1
Kurt
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:10:27AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Accept PR 16050 in 3.0 subject to our normal review process
> Proposed by Tim Hudson
> Public: yes
> opened: 2021-07-20
> closed: 2021-07-27
> accepted: no (for: 1, against: 3, abstained: 4, not voted: 1)
I don't find a call
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 01:51:27PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Accept PR 16128 in 3.0 subject to our normal review process
+1
Kurt
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:18:27AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: We should accept PR #16118 into 3.0 when completed and subject to the
>normal review process
This already seems to be merged, so I'll vote 0.
Kurt
> topic: We should fix the issue described in #16088 for 3.0
After reading #16088, I have no idea what this vote means, so I
will vote -1.
Please stop referring to a github issue or pull request as vote
text and actually describe what we're voting on.
Since this describes a regression against
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:24:55AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Allow the addition of EVP_PKEY_get0_provider() and
>EVP_PKEY_CTX_get0_provider() calls in 3.0
-1
Kurt
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 10:26:13AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Remove ERR_GET_FUNC in 3.0
> Proposed by Nicola Tuveri
> Public: yes
> opened: 2021-07-06
> closed: 2021-07-06
> accepted: yes (for: 6, against: 1, abstained: 0, not voted: 2)
There seem to be no good solutions here, so I'm
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 12:18:26PM -0500, Richard Laager via devel wrote:
> On 7/5/21 8:38 AM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
> > > There is a close-to-RFC to handle this area. "Interleave" is the
> > > buzzword. I
> > > haven't studied it. The idea is to grab a transmit time stamp, then
>
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 10:50:36AM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> topic: Accept PR #15763 for 1.1.1 subject to the normal review process
+1
Kurt
Package: cfengine3
Version: 3.15.2-3
Hi,
cfengine3 fails to build with OpenSSL 3.0 beta 1 with the
following error:
In file included from hash.c:33:
./hash.h:64:28: error: unknown type name RSA
64 | Hash *HashNewFromKey(const RSA *rsa, HashMethod method);
|
Package: certmonger
Version: 0.79.13-3
Hi,
Your package is failing to build with OpenSSL 3.0 beta 1.
The problem is that EVP_PKEY_base_id has been renamed to
EVP_PKEY_get_base_id. There is a define to rename it:
/usr/include/openssl/evp.h:# define EVP_PKEY_base_id EVP_PKEY_get_base_id
But your
Package: caml-crush
Version: 1.0.10-4
Hi,
Your package is failing to build against OpenSSL 3.0 beta 1. The
log file show:
configure:6589: checking for SSL_get_peer_certificate in -lssl
configure:6614: gcc -o conftest -g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/<>=.
-fstack-protector-strong -Wformat
reassign 990228 ssl-cert
severity 990228 normal
thanks
So I think there is no bug in OpenSSL and the additional check
being done in 3.0 makes sense. So I'm reassigning this to
ssl-cert.
Kurt
201 - 300 of 14770 matches
Mail list logo
