Control: severity -1 important
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:02:07PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:21:34AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Do we have a timeline for OpenSSL 1.1?
>
> It currently seems to be when we can get the number of packages
> that FTBFS to a rea
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:21:34AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Do we have a timeline for OpenSSL 1.1?
It currently seems to be when we can get the number of packages
that FTBFS to a reasonable number.
Kurt
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:17:03PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-06-28 16:40:09 [-0300], Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > upstream already has support for OpenSSL 1.1.0 in trunk for Ruby 2.4;
> > see upstream bug linked above. given the current state of afairs, we
> > will need to ei
On 2016-06-28 16:40:09 [-0300], Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> upstream already has support for OpenSSL 1.1.0 in trunk for Ruby 2.4;
> see upstream bug linked above. given the current state of afairs, we
> will need to either backport that for Ruby 2.3 ourselves, or disable the
> openssl extension bundl
Control: forwarded -1 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12324
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 12:24:00PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Source: ruby2.3
> Version: 2.3.1-1
> Severity: important
> Control: block 827061 by -1
>
> Hi,
>
> OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages us
Source: ruby2.3
Version: 2.3.1-1
Severity: important
Control: block 827061 by -1
Hi,
OpenSSL 1.1.0 is about to released. During a rebuild of all packages using
OpenSSL this package fail to build. A log of that build can be found at:
https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-1.1-rebuild-2016-05-29/Attempted
6 matches
Mail list logo
