On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 07:43:47PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> I intend to convert the affected pkg-perl packages to use it and file
> bugs for the rest (if any) in the next few days.
I've uploaded these:
libnet-ssleay-perl_1.78-2
libcrypt-ssleay-perl_0.73.04-2
libcrypt-openssl-bignum-perl_0.07-2
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 04:01:00PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> Control: block -1 with 848932
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:11:14AM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 02:22:16PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> >
> > > One "proper" way to do this would be to introduce a
Control: block -1 with 848932
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:11:14AM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 02:22:16PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
>
> > One "proper" way to do this would be to introduce a perl-openssl-abi-1.1
> > virtual package that the others would depend on to make sure
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 02:22:16PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> One "proper" way to do this would be to introduce a perl-openssl-abi-1.1
> virtual package that the others would depend on to make sure they are
> compatible with each other. Not sure who should provide this; it could be
> one of the
On 2016-12-17 20:38:43 [+0200], Niko Tyni wrote:
> > > For reference, here's a list of lib.*-perl packages depending on
> > > libssl1.*.
> > As of unstable, there should be nothing perl related depending on libssl1.0.
> > If there is then please let me know because it probably might be good to
>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 04:17:40PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-12-17 14:22:16 [+0200], Niko Tyni wrote:
> > That's assuming all the rebuilt packages migrate into stretch so that
> > none with libssl1.0.2 dependencies are left. Is anybody monitoring this?
>
> from the
On 2016-12-17 14:22:16 [+0200], Niko Tyni wrote:
> That's assuming all the rebuilt packages migrate into stretch so that
> none with libssl1.0.2 dependencies are left. Is anybody monitoring this?
from the transition tracker everything *perl* is green so I don't see a reason
why it should not
Control: severity -1 important
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 12:38:11PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-12-14 19:21:07 [+0100], gregor herrmann wrote:
> > Hm, a breaks with a binNUM version sounds at least inelegant.
> >
> > How about:
> > libcrypt-openssl-pkcs10-perl: Depends:
On 2016-12-14 19:21:07 [+0100], gregor herrmann wrote:
> Hm, a breaks with a binNUM version sounds at least inelegant.
>
> How about:
> libcrypt-openssl-pkcs10-perl: Depends: libcrypt-openssl-rsa-perl (>= 0.28-4)
> libcrypt-openssl-rsa-perl: Breaks: libcrypt-openssl-pkcs10-perl (<< 0.16-2)
All
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 10:49:53 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> Filing the bug against libcrypt-openssl-rsa-perl to make sure it
> doesn't enter testing as-is, but the minimal fix is to rebuild
> libcrypt-openssl-pkcs10-perl.
Ack.
> We probably want some Breaks as well for partial upgrades,
> even if
Package: libcrypt-openssl-rsa-perl
Version: 0.28-4
Severity: grave
User: debian-p...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: autopkgtest
The libcrypt-openssl-pkcs10-perl recently started failing its autopkgtest
checks, as seen at
11 matches
Mail list logo
