Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:22:57PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-03-18 14:51:32 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Boo. Hope you're doing better.
> 
> Thanks, yes.
> 
> > > I would also do the upload for Buster, would that work? I remember
> > > that
> > > the packages, that broken, were already uploaded a few cycles ago.
> > 
> > Also as 1.1.1n?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > I assume there haven't been any regressions reported with l/m/n in the
> > meantime.

I'm not aware of any regressions the past year.


Kurt

Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2022-03-18 14:51:32 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Boo. Hope you're doing better.

Thanks, yes.

> > I would also do the upload for Buster, would that work? I remember
> > that
> > the packages, that broken, were already uploaded a few cycles ago.
> 
> Also as 1.1.1n?

Yes.

> I assume there haven't been any regressions reported with l/m/n in the
> meantime.

Not that I am aware of. I'm adding Kurt explicit in To: in case has some
secret knowledge.
Just uploaded the Bullseye version.

> Regards,
> 
> Adm

Sebastian

Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Fri, 2022-03-18 at 14:12 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-03-18 09:21:50 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Apologies if the status here got confused - based on the above, I
> > was
> > assuming that in the absence of a negative response you would
> > proceed
> > with the 1.1.1n-0+deb11u1 plan. For complete clarity, please feel
> > free
> > to do so, bearing in mind that the window for the 11.3 point
> > release
> > closes over this weekend.
> 
> No need to apologies. I did plan to do it on WED but got busy with
> other
> things, got sick on THU and couldn't anything so the plan is indeed
> today.
> 

Boo. Hope you're doing better.

> I would also do the upload for Buster, would that work? I remember
> that
> the packages, that broken, were already uploaded a few cycles ago.

Also as 1.1.1n?

I assume there haven't been any regressions reported with l/m/n in the
meantime.

Regards,

Adm

Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2022-03-18 09:21:50 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Apologies if the status here got confused - based on the above, I was
> assuming that in the absence of a negative response you would proceed
> with the 1.1.1n-0+deb11u1 plan. For complete clarity, please feel free
> to do so, bearing in mind that the window for the 11.3 point release
> closes over this weekend.

No need to apologies. I did plan to do it on WED but got busy with other
things, got sick on THU and couldn't anything so the plan is indeed
today.

I would also do the upload for Buster, would that work? I remember that
the packages, that broken, were already uploaded a few cycles ago.

Thank you!

> Regards,
> 
> Adam

Sebastian

Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 08:45 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-02-19 17:57:25 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Feel free to upload; we'll wait for the d-i ack before accepting
> > the
> > package into p-u.
> 
> There will be the release of 1.1.1n on Tuesday 15th March 2022
> including
> a security fix. Therefore I will:
> - prepare a security release against 1.1.1k-1+deb11u1 which will be
>   released via d-security.
> - respond to this bug with a debdiff against 1.1.1m-0+deb11u1
> - upload 1.1.1n-0+deb11u1.
> 

Apologies if the status here got confused - based on the above, I was
assuming that in the absence of a negative response you would proceed
with the 1.1.1n-0+deb11u1 plan. For complete clarity, please feel free
to do so, bearing in mind that the window for the 11.3 point release
closes over this weekend.

Regards,

Adam

Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Cyril Brulebois]

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior  (2022-03-09):
> On 2022-02-19 17:57:25 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Feel free to upload; we'll wait for the d-i ack before accepting the
> > package into p-u.
> 
> There will be the release of 1.1.1n on Tuesday 15th March 2022 including
> a security fix. Therefore I will:
> - prepare a security release against 1.1.1k-1+deb11u1 which will be
>   released via d-security.
> - respond to this bug with a debdiff against 1.1.1m-0+deb11u1
> - upload 1.1.1n-0+deb11u1.
> 
> Please say if I should delay my upload until a request from the release
> team happens, prepare a debdiff against another release or if there is
> something else.

Just for the avoidance of doubt: I'll be dealing with whatever ends up
in the archive(s) for the d-i side, don't block on me.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2022-02-19 17:57:25 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Feel free to upload; we'll wait for the d-i ack before accepting the
> package into p-u.

There will be the release of 1.1.1n on Tuesday 15th March 2022 including
a security fix. Therefore I will:
- prepare a security release against 1.1.1k-1+deb11u1 which will be
  released via d-security.
- respond to this bug with a debdiff against 1.1.1m-0+deb11u1
- upload 1.1.1n-0+deb11u1.

Please say if I should delay my upload until a request from the release
team happens, prepare a debdiff against another release or if there is
something else.

> Regards,
> 
> Adam

Sebastian

Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2022-02-19 17:57:25 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> 
> Feel free to upload; we'll wait for the d-i ack before accepting the
> package into p-u.

Okay. The Bullseye package has been uploaded.

> Regards,
> 
> Adam

Sebastian

Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Sat, 2022-02-19 at 18:52 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-02-19 17:04:16 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i
> …
> > Thanks. Assuming the above is still accurate, then this looks good
> > to
> > me.
> > 
> > As the package builds a udeb, it will need a d-i ack; tagging and
> > CCing
> > accordingly.
> 
> I'm confused. May I upload or do I wait for the d-i ack?
> 

Sorry for the confusion.

Feel free to upload; we'll wait for the d-i ack before accepting the
package into p-u.

Regards,

Adam

Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2022-02-19 17:04:16 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i
…
> Thanks. Assuming the above is still accurate, then this looks good to
> me.
> 
> As the package builds a udeb, it will need a d-i ack; tagging and CCing
> accordingly.

I'm confused. May I upload or do I wait for the d-i ack?

> Regards,
> 
> Adam

Sebastian

Bug#1003484: bullseye-pu: package openssl/1.1.1m-0+deb11u1

[Adam D. Barratt]

Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i

On Tue, 2022-01-11 at 00:00 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This is an update to the latest stable update of the openssl package
> provided by upstream. It contains fixes for bugs which were not
> identified as security critical but still worth fixing.
> 
> The m release is in unstable the 24th December with no regression
> reports so far. I haven't seen any fixes for regression in the stable
> branch as of now. The testsuite passed for Bullseye during package
> build and I deployed on a VM for testing (with nginx and openvpn
> instance).

Thanks. Assuming the above is still accurate, then this looks good to
me.

As the package builds a udeb, it will need a d-i ack; tagging and CCing
accordingly.

Regards,

Adam