Your message dated Mon, 4 Jul 2016 17:23:30 -0400
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#705200: fails on partial upgrade from squeeze+bp to
wheezy on armel
has caused the Debian Bug report #705200,
regarding fails on partial upgrade from squeeze+bp to wheezy on armel
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
705200: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=705200
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: unbound
Version: 1.4.17-3
Severity: normal
Hi,
I did an upgrade on my armel system from squeeze + backports to wheezy:
| Setting up unbound (1.4.17-3) ...
| Restarting recursive DNS server: unbound/usr/sbin/unbound: symbol lookup
error: /usr/sbin/unbound: undefined symbol: ldns_key_EVP_load_gost_id
| failed!
At this time I still had bp's libldns:
| ii libldns1 1.6.13-1~bpo60+1 armel
ldns library for DNS programming
which satisfied unbound's requirement for libldns1 (>= 1.6.13).
Also upgrading libldns to wheezy made unbound start again.
Cheers,
weasel
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Robert Edmonds wrote:
>
> > sorry about this. the ldns squeeze backport is built against
> > libssl0.9.8 so it excludes GOST support, thus it isn't ABI compatible
> > with the unbound from wheezy. i don't think breaking partial upgrades
> > from squeeze-backports to wheezy is release critical, so this bug will
> > probably have to wait for a stable [wheezy] update, if it gets fixed at
> > all. maybe a release note is in order, though?
>
> I agree that it isn't RC, which is why I didn't file it as such.
>
> If there had been a trivial fix or workaround that'd have been nice to
> apply, but I won't be too angry if this isn't getting fixed.
>
> Thanks for the explanation as to what causes the problem.
It looks like there won't be any more wheezy updates, so I'm marking
this done. Sorry it didn't get fixed, but hopefully it didn't cause too
much hassle :-(
--
Robert Edmonds
[email protected]
--- End Message ---
