Hi Dan, On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:09:55PM -0500, Dan White wrote:
> >>Now you could argue that Cyrus upstream should not do that, i.e. breaking > >>the plugin ABI for a "step" release but that argument is two years late > >>(which is how long the .24 has been around). > >There is no cyrus-sasl 2.1.24 release. There is a release > >candidate, which when I tested it, had a series of serious flaws. > >Why anyone would add that to a distribution is beyond me. The > >latest release of cyrus-sasl is 2.1.23. I find it significant > >that after 2 years there still remains no official 2.1.24 release > >after the numerous issue reports that were filtered back to the > >project. > There's been quite a bit of new work even since the 2.1.24rc1 tarball, > including work corresponding to the newer IETF SASL standards (GS2, SCRAM, > and channel binding), so I wouldn't be surprised to see another version > bump before the next release. The package in Debian is actually based on > CVS HEAD, and should be in much better shape than 2.1.24rc1 was. > Please file any outstanding issues against the sasl packages, and I'll try > to filter those to upstream developers as appropriate. Since 2.1.24 is still in the RC stages, given that this is an ABI change, *would* it be possible to get the soname bumped before the 2.1.24 release? If not, I'll push a rebuild of openldap in Debian and coordinate with the cyrus-sasl2 maintainers to get a proper Breaks field declared for the upgrade case. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature