On 2/23/20 2:55 PM, Nikolai Lusan wrote: > On Sun, 2020-02-23 at 14:49 +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
Hi Nikolai, >> Severity grave to make sure it doesn't enter testing. > > Wouldn't that be better applied to proftpd-basic - since it was the update > there that broke this? I posted a bug against mod-vroot because that is > that package that is currently broken, but if you have proftpd-basic > install along with a module that is not compatible (i.e. the version of > mod-vroot currently packaged) then proftpd-basic will just install happily > and break any configuration you have using that module. > > As far as I can tell the new version of proftpd-basic has a different abi, > not entirely sure what has changed on the inside of it. > Last week I uploaded new versions for proftpd and proftpd-mod-vroot. Hence I can't be sure, which upload broke the module. I'm just wondering how you managed to install "proftpd-basic v1.3.6c-1", which provides the proftpd-abi-1.3.6c, meanwhile the mod-vroot depends on (exactly) proftpd-abi-1.3.6b. Does downgrading the proftpd-basic to the version from testing solves the issue? Hilmar -- sigfault #206401 http://counter.li.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
