On 2017-02-22 00:46:56 [+0100], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Thanks. Investigating the rest would be good. I guess most of those are just
> for
So I made a list by the time I received that email I just managed to
work through it. I check most of them manually but by the end of it I
hacked some
On 2017-02-22 00:46:56 [+0100], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > There are 78 packages in the unkown state. The first few I looked could
> > actually have their libssl-dev dependency dropped. khtml is the first
> > one which looked wrong. I will open a bug about that later. I didn't get
> > any fu
On 22/02/17 00:28, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-01-28 19:37:09 [+0100], Julien Cristau wrote:
>> At this point, it seems clear to me that we're getting nowhere fast.
>> With the freeze looming in a few days, this is growing to be a very big
>> risk for the stretch release.
>
> Where
On 2017-01-28 19:37:09 [+0100], Julien Cristau wrote:
> At this point, it seems clear to me that we're getting nowhere fast.
> With the freeze looming in a few days, this is growing to be a very big
> risk for the stretch release.
Where do we stand on the openssl transition from the perspective of
JFTR cyrus-sasl2 should not fail with openssl 1.0, so I'll fix that
quickly if needed.
O.
--
Ondřej Surý
Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server
Knot Resolver (https://www.knot-resolver.cz/) – secure, privacy-aware,
fast DNS(SEC) resolver
Vše pro chleba (https://vsepr
On 2017-02-01 22:18:07 [+0100], Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Currently I am rebuilding testing with the same set of package against
> libssl-dev provided by libssl1.0-dev. After that I retry the failed
> packages above where I am not sure why they failed (mostly I suspect the
> parallel) case
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:49:15PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> what is wrong with passing -j16 to sbuild? Other packages, that do not
> support parallel building, don't do it.
yeah, exactly.
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 2017-02-02 22:26:35 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The kannel package does not claim to support parallel building.
>
> If you attempt parallel building on that,
> then any build failures are your fault.
what is wrong with passing -j16 to sbuild? Other packages, that do not
support parallel buil
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 09:09:56PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>...
> > You can go to http://reproducible.debian.net/$srcpkgname and see for
> > yourself
> > whether they build fine in our environment. If they do, you can rule out
> > "parallel" as causing this…
>
> I see. I looked at
On 2017-02-02 16:54:08 [+], Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> I'm surprised to see that many packages failing to build in parallel, as we're
> building everything in parallel and I dont remember such failures recentl.y
So retried them with -j1 [0] and:
- passed:
boxbackup 0.11.1~r2837-4
erlang 19.2
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:18:07PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> - boxbackup_0.11.1~r2837-4
> parallel issue?
> - erlang 1:19.2.1+dfsg-1
> parallel issue?
> - kannel 1.4.4-4
> parallel issue?
> - kannel-sqlbox 0.7.2-4
> parallel issue?
> - mailsync 5.2.2-3.1
> parallel?
> -
On 2017-01-28 19:37:09 [+0100], Julien Cristau wrote:
> At this point, it seems clear to me that we're getting nowhere fast.
> With the freeze looming in a few days, this is growing to be a very big
> risk for the stretch release.
I rebuild testing, with the subset of:
grep-dctrl -FDepends libssl
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 07:37:09PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 20:59:53 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > OpenSSL will soon release a new upstream version with a new
> > soname. This new version will break various packages, see:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 20:59:53 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> OpenSSL will soon release a new upstream version with a new
> soname. This new version will break various packages, see:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/06/msg00205.html
>
> I'm currently not sure when the release will be
On 10/12/16 14:08, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/26/2016 10:55 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> I have a quick question now that the transition is ongoing: is it OK
> for me to upload a new version of open-isns (B-D: libssl-dev) that's
> unrelated to t
Hi,
On 10/26/2016 10:55 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
I have a quick question now that the transition is ongoing: is it OK
for me to upload a new version of open-isns (B-D: libssl-dev) that's
unrelated to this transition? (New upstream version, some debconf
transl
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:15:44PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-12-01 00:52:59 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Wouldn't "depends on libssl1.0.2 and does not build-depend on libssl1.0-dev"
> > give a reasonably small superset of all packages that need a binNMU?
>
> Do you mean
On 2016-12-01 00:52:59 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Wouldn't "depends on libssl1.0.2 and does not build-depend on libssl1.0-dev"
> give a reasonably small superset of all packages that need a binNMU?
Do you mean something like
is_affected = .depends ~ /libssl1\.0\.2/ & ! .build-depends ~ /libssl
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:43:36PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-11-05 21:59:27 [+0100], Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > I've been playing with ben. I tried a few things and this is the best I
> > was able to achieve [0]:
> >
> > title = "openssl 1.0";
> > is_affected = .b
On 2016-11-05 21:59:27 [+0100], Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I've been playing with ben. I tried a few things and this is the best I
> was able to achieve [0]:
>
> title = "openssl 1.0";
> is_affected = .build-depends ~ /libssl1.0-dev/;
> is_good = .depends ~ /libssl1.0.2/;
> is_bad = .depen
Hi,
I'm maintaining two packages affected by this transition. So far, I've
just been monitoring the situation, as I share many of the concerns that
have been raised on -devel.
Is it an acceptable solution to instead build-depend on libbsl1.0-dev,
downgrade the severity of the FTBFS with 1.1.0 bug
On 2016-10-26 10:55:19 [+0200], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> So let's do this. Let's try to get it finished and only ship openssl 1.1. We
> still have three months until the full freeze, and depending on how many
> packages (and which ones, for risk management etc) are left to be fixed after
> t
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:18:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> If everything that is important in 1.1.0 should be used by all
> users of OpenSSL in stretch, then the best solution for stretch
> is to ship only 1.0.2 and add all desired features there.
And I guess you're going to add all those f
Disclaimer:
I am not a member of the release team, and I am only speaking for myself.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 02:28:12AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>...
> I think the most important new security feature in the 1.1.0
> version is the extended master secret support. There are also a
> bunch of others
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:55:19AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> On 25/10/16 20:09, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:44:08PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:52:31PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >>>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 08:09:06PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:44:08PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:52:31PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sorry but I'm going to have to nack this for Stretch, as much as I
> > > l
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:55:19 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> So let's do this. Let's try to get it finished and only ship openssl 1.1. We
> still have three months until the full freeze
Hi,
packages that currently FTBFS will be removed from testing in 2 weeks.
The freeze deadline for
On 2016-10-26 21:31:26 [+0200], Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Is this situation
> > supported or should we expect things to break? This can easily happen if an
> > app
> > links against a library libA which uses openssl 1.0, and against libB which
> > uses
> > openssl 1.1.
>
> When linking you actually
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 08:53:56PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>
> Adrian Bunk asked whether mixing both OpenSSL versions into the same address
> space works fine. Is OpenSSL using symbol versioning?
Yes, and all symbols have a different version name in 1.0.2 and
1.1.0. (What is actually
On 26/10/16 10:55, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> On 25/10/16 20:09, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:44:08PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:52:31PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm goi
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 25/10/16 20:09, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:44:08PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:52:31PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but I'm going to have to nack this for Stretch, as much as I like
>>>
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:44:08PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:52:31PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry but I'm going to have to nack this for Stretch, as much as I like
> > to
> > approve transitions and get new stuff in. I have looked at the open
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:52:31PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but I'm going to have to nack this for Stretch, as much as I like to
> approve transitions and get new stuff in. I have looked at the opened bugs and
> I'm afraid this still is too disruptive. I have noticed that
Hi Kurt,
On 12/10/16 22:47, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 09:33:43PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 09:42:59PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 09:31:17PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 11/06/16 20:59, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 09:33:43PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 09:42:59PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 09:31:17PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > > On 11/06/16 20:59, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > > OpenSSL will soon release a new upstream versio
On 2016-09-18 21:33:43 [+0200], Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> So OpenSSL 1.1.0 was released about 3 weeks ago. Since then we've
now a month and a few days now.
> been working on the key packages, to get them to build with
> OpenSSL 1.1.0. You can see that status of that at:
> https://bugs.debian.org/c
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 09:42:59PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 09:31:17PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > On 11/06/16 20:59, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > OpenSSL will soon release a new upstream version with a new
> > > soname. This new version will break various packa
Re: Kurt Roeckx 2016-09-16 <20160916054549.2wjl4xzb2eyg6...@roeckx.be>
> > do you expect the transition to be done for stretch?
>
> I really would like to have it in stretch. I don't want to have
> the same situtation like we had with 1.0.2 that didn't make it it
> to jessie.
Nod, thanks for con
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:44:42PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Kurt Roeckx 2016-06-11 <20160611194259.ga6...@roeckx.be>
> > > > If I'm ready to upload it to unstable, can I start this
> > > > transition? Are there things you want me to do?
> > >
> > > Please upload to experimental first an
Re: Kurt Roeckx 2016-06-11 <20160611194259.ga6...@roeckx.be>
> > > If I'm ready to upload it to unstable, can I start this
> > > transition? Are there things you want me to do?
> >
> > Please upload to experimental first and let us know when that's happened.
>
> It's in experimental already. Th
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 09:31:17PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 11/06/16 20:59, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > OpenSSL will soon release a new upstream version with a new
> > soname. This new version will break various packages, see:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/06/msg00205.
On 11/06/16 20:59, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> OpenSSL will soon release a new upstream version with a new
> soname. This new version will break various packages, see:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/06/msg00205.html
>
> I'm currently not sure when the release will be ready. I would
> like
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
OpenSSL will soon release a new upstream version with a new
soname. This new version will break various packages, see:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/06/msg00205.html
I
43 matches
Mail list logo
