Bug#871056: transition: openssl
On 2018-11-17 11:55:54 [+0100], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > There's also kde4libs #858937. This got fixed and migrated to testing. Could we please get rid of libssl1.0.2 in testing? I have a RC bug against it so it should not reenter. > Emilio Sebastian
Bug#871056: transition: openssl
On 08/11/2018 23:00, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-02-25 10:59:57 [+0100], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> We're getting close. According to the transition tracker, the remaining >> rdeps in >> testing are: > … >> kopete - no fix upstream, optional for jingle (call) support in XMPP > … > > This is the last one in testing. kopete's #858938 has been closed in > experimental but it never made to unstable. There's also kde4libs #858937. Emilio
Bug#871056: transition: openssl
On 2018-02-25 10:59:57 [+0100], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > We're getting close. According to the transition tracker, the remaining rdeps > in > testing are: … > kopete - no fix upstream, optional for jingle (call) support in XMPP … This is the last one in testing. kopete's #858938 has been closed in experimental but it never made to unstable. > Cheers, > Emilio Sebastian
Bug#871056: transition: openssl
On 12/10/17 10:56, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 21/09/17 21:39, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> On 2017-09-13 18:51:43 [+0200], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >>> tags 871056 confirmed >>> thanks >> >> just noticed that this bug has been confirmed. Does this mean anything >> for the openssl transition? Usually this confirmed comes with "Go ahead" >> which leads to an upload to unstable and the severity of the blocker >> bugs is raised to serious. >> Should the severity of the blocker bugs be raised or do we keep things >> as they are for now? > > As we discussed on the last release team meeting: let's do this, but first > send > a 'warning' saying that the bugs will be bumped in a month, and do the bump > later. That will give maintainers more time to react before the auto-removal > kicks in. We're getting close. According to the transition tracker, the remaining rdeps in testing are: netty-tcnative - fixed upstream omniorb-dfsg - fixed in experimental ruby2.3 - ongoing transition to ruby2.5, then this will be removed xml-security-c - no fix, but upstream said it would get fixed "this year" ipsec-tools - no fix, but due for autoremoval openssh - Kurt has worked on a fix with upstream qtbase-opensource-src - fixed in experimental, we need a Qt transition curl - transition pending kopete - no fix upstream, optional for jingle (call) support in XMPP xmltooling - same as xml-security-c zurl - blocked on curl Hopefully we get those transitions done soon and the rest get some progress too. Cheers, Emilio
Bug#871056: transition: openssl
On 21/09/17 21:39, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-09-13 18:51:43 [+0200], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> tags 871056 confirmed >> thanks > > just noticed that this bug has been confirmed. Does this mean anything > for the openssl transition? Usually this confirmed comes with "Go ahead" > which leads to an upload to unstable and the severity of the blocker > bugs is raised to serious. > Should the severity of the blocker bugs be raised or do we keep things > as they are for now? As we discussed on the last release team meeting: let's do this, but first send a 'warning' saying that the bugs will be bumped in a month, and do the bump later. That will give maintainers more time to react before the auto-removal kicks in. Thanks, Emilio
Bug#871056: transition: openssl
On 2017-09-13 18:51:43 [+0200], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > tags 871056 confirmed > thanks just noticed that this bug has been confirmed. Does this mean anything for the openssl transition? Usually this confirmed comes with "Go ahead" which leads to an upload to unstable and the severity of the blocker bugs is raised to serious. Should the severity of the blocker bugs be raised or do we keep things as they are for now? Sebastian
Bug#871056: transition: openssl
Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/openssl1.0-rm.html On 07/08/17 00:08, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > Severity: normal > > This transition should be the final one to get libssl1.0.2 out of > unstable for Buster and move all libssl1.0-dev users back to libssl-dev. > There are new 1.0-users comming from to time. The current 1.0 packages > are tracked at [0]. I still have my old tracker at [1] where I track 1.0 > packages. I added this [1] a while ago: https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/openssl1.0-rm.html Cheers, Emilio
Bug#871056: transition: openssl
Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Severity: normal This transition should be the final one to get libssl1.0.2 out of unstable for Buster and move all libssl1.0-dev users back to libssl-dev. There are new 1.0-users comming from to time. The current 1.0 packages are tracked at [0]. I still have my old tracker at [1] where I track 1.0 packages. Ben file: title = "openssl"; is_affected = .depends ~ "libssl1.0.2" | .depends ~ "libssl1.1"; is_good = .depends ~ "libssl1.1"; is_bad = .depends ~ "libssl1.0.2"; [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=openssl-1.1-trans;users=pkg-openssl-devel%40lists.alioth.debian.org [1] https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-trans/html/openssl1.0.html Sebastian
