On 03/01/2017 08:21 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> The problem is that if the package was to be rebuilt now, it would be
>> rebuilt with OpenSSL 1.1 and not OpenSSL 1.0 which is the original
>> motivation for this bug report by Sebastian!
>
> it already has been built with 1.1. We are don
On 2017-03-01 00:50:59 [+0100], John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi!
Hi,
> The problem is that if the package was to be rebuilt now, it would be
> rebuilt with OpenSSL 1.1 and not OpenSSL 1.0 which is the original
> motivation for this bug report by Sebastian!
it already has been built with 1.1
Hi!
> We shouldn't be changing the way a package builds during freeze.
> It was last built with openssl 1.0, so that's what we should have for now.
The problem is that if the package was to be rebuilt now, it would be
rebuilt with OpenSSL 1.1 and not OpenSSL 1.0 which is the original
motivation f
On 2017-02-26 20:31:23 [+0100], Pino Toscano wrote:
> In data domenica 26 febbraio 2017 20:15:25 CET, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ha
> scritto:
> > On 02/26/2017 07:48 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > I don't insist on anything. I noticed that this package does not depend on
> > > libssl a
On February 26, 2017 2:15:25 PM EST, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
>On 02/26/2017 07:48 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> I don't insist on anything. I noticed that this package does not
>depend on
>> libssl after building and that is why I took a look.
>
>Interesting. So, I guess the
In data domenica 26 febbraio 2017 20:15:25 CET, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ha
scritto:
> On 02/26/2017 07:48 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > I don't insist on anything. I noticed that this package does not depend on
> > libssl after building and that is why I took a look.
That is because
On 02/26/2017 07:48 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I don't insist on anything. I noticed that this package does not depend on
> libssl after building and that is why I took a look.
Interesting. So, I guess the best option would actually to drop the B-D on
libssl-dev completely. I have chec
On 2017-02-26 01:03:23 [+0100], John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> But the question is whether SSL support is actually relevant in khtml at all.
If it is not exported or mixed with QT's SSL then it is not relevant.
> As you can see from the list of reverse dependencies, there's actually not
> muc
On 02/25/2017 09:39 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> No. I assume that it might use QT's internal networking which is 1.0 and if
> they mix then bad things will happen.
>
> The two functions marked * have no error handling if the function is missing.
> Not using SSLv23_client_method() means
On 2017-02-25 12:29:31 [-0300], Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> I think the issue here is if it will work or not at runtime.
that is what I assume, correct.
> Sebastian: have you seen it crash due to this?
No. I assume that it might use QT's internal networking which is 1.0 and if
On sábado, 25 de febrero de 2017 10:56:59 ART Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, February 25, 2017 12:29:31 PM Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez
> Meyer
> wrote:
> > On sábado, 25 de febrero de 2017 14:03:31 ART John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
>
> wrote:
> > > Hi Sebastian!
> > >
> > > I just gave it a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi!
On 02/25/2017 04:29 PM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> I think the issue here is if it will work or not at runtime.
>
> Sebastian: have you seen it crash due to this?
So, looking at the reverse dependencies of khtml (libkf5khtml5
On Saturday, February 25, 2017 12:29:31 PM Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> On sábado, 25 de febrero de 2017 14:03:31 ART John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian!
> >
> > I just gave it a try and khtml builds fine as is.
> >
> > Are there any additional tests you'd suggest
On sábado, 25 de febrero de 2017 14:03:31 ART John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Sebastian!
>
> I just gave it a try and khtml builds fine as is.
>
> Are there any additional tests you'd suggest for testing whether khtml
> works fine with libssl1.1? Attached is the build log of a successful
>
Hi Sebastian!
I just gave it a try and khtml builds fine as is.
Are there any additional tests you'd suggest for testing whether khtml
works fine with libssl1.1? Attached is the build log of a successful
test build of the current khtml package.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :'
Package: khtml
Version: 5.28.0-1
Severity: serious
khtml B-D on libssl-dev and has been built against it in the archive. I
am not entirely sure that this works. I doubt because QT itself uses
libssl1.0.2 and passing around SSL, SSL_CTX, BIO or any other struct is
a no no. Additionally some of the
16 matches
Mail list logo
