On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 22:10 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:56:40PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 22:08:57 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >
> > > So I currently see those in testing:
> > > - ace: There have been a number of gcc-4.6 updates, I gave
> >
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:56:40PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 22:08:57 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > So I currently see those in testing:
> > - ace: There have been a number of gcc-4.6 updates, I gave
> > it back to see if the ICE has been fixed or not.
>
> Still d
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 22:08:57 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> So I currently see those in testing:
> - ace: There have been a number of gcc-4.6 updates, I gave
> it back to see if the ICE has been fixed or not.
Still does. Apparently using gcc-4.4 would work around it, there's a
patch to do tha
- ace: There have been a number of gcc-4.6 updates, I gave
it back to see if the ICE has been fixed or not.
The build that resulted from the most recent give-back
failed but it did so in a VERY strange manner.
It claimed to install libzzlib-dev and zlib1g-dev yet it
failed to link against t
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 08:46:22PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 16:02:14 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> >
> > This is to track the transition of
Hi Julien
This should be fixed for ipsec-tools and racoon as of 0.8.0-9 on sid.
Checked on sid amd64 via apt-cache depends.
Building again on kfreebsd-i386 and kfreebsd-amd64 via buildd. Closed
the 2 bugs that kept kfreebsd.
Lets see if this package makes it to testing.
Cheers,
Matthew
On Thu
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 02:46:34 +0100, peter green wrote:
> >openssl098 is still kept in testing by:
> >- ace (ICE on armel)
> Taking a look at this one
Thanks. IIRC it was similar to the one affecting shibboleth-sp2, which
had to revert to using gcc-4.4 instead of 4.6.
> >- beid (RC-buggy, ca
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 22:23:46 +0200, Andreas Noteng wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 20:46 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > - transgui (#632532, candidate for removal)
>
> I'm sorry, but rebuilding transgui with the current fpc creates a bug
> which makes it almost useless, at least on amd64. I'
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 20:46 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> - transgui (#632532, candidate for removal)
I'm sorry, but rebuilding transgui with the current fpc creates a bug
which makes it almost useless, at least on amd64. I've sent one more
mail to upstream, but it looks like this one might have
Hi Rene,
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:10, Rene Engelhard wrote:
...
> That was all what was to prove. No one denied that sid might have
> picked up 1.0.0, but testing definitely isn't (and this isdnutils
> keeps openssl 0.9.8 in testing as the idnutils *there* *does* depend
> on 0.9.8)
It seems tha
openssl098 is still kept in testing by:
- ace (ICE on armel)
Taking a look at this one
- beid (RC-buggy, candidate for removal)
- ipsec-tools (#619687 #643570, has reverse dependencies)
- isakmpd (#622051, candidate for removal)
This bug has had a patch for several months, but the maintainer has
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 09:02:31PM +0800, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
> I'm not in a mood for this kind of "discussion". I can only reiterate
> that there is nothing I can do. Packages built after openssl 1.0.0 had
> become the standard are fine and I have no control over older binary
Yes.
> packages t
I'm not in a mood for this kind of "discussion". I can only reiterate
that there is nothing I can do. Packages built after openssl 1.0.0 had
become the standard are fine and I have no control over older binary
packages that are already released.
>> I can only repeat that there is nothing inherent
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 05:17:13PM +0800, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
> FWIW, http://packages.debian.org/sid/ipppd lists libssl0.9.8 for alpha,
> armhf, hppa, m68k, sh4 and libssl1.0.0 for the rest. I checked the
> other binary packages as well.
Totally irrelevant.
sid != testing.
http://packages.debi
Adam,
thank you for your comment.
FWIW, http://packages.debian.org/sid/ipppd lists libssl0.9.8 for alpha,
armhf, hppa, m68k, sh4 and libssl1.0.0 for the rest. I checked the
other binary packages as well.
I can only repeat that there is nothing inherently in isdnutils to force
dependency on libs
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:48:07 +0800, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
I believe isdnutils is a
false positive in your list. All packages in testing depend on 1.0.0
of the openssl packages. The arches where isdnutils-derived packages
still depend on 0.9.8 either have outdated isdnutils and/or openssl
packages
On 07.10.2011 02:46, Julien Cristau wrote:
openssl098 is still kept in testing by:
[...]
- isdnutils (#618228, has reverse dependencies)
Julien,
thank you for the heads up. I maintain (to the best of my limited
abilities) the isdnutils package in D
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 16:02:14 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> This is to track the transition of openssl 1.0.0. Most of the
> problems are related to dropping SSLv2 support.
>
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
This is to track the transition of openssl 1.0.0. Most of the
problems are related to dropping SSLv2 support.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debia
19 matches
Mail list logo
