On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:00:21AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> binNMU & recompilation: won't break if the app really works with this
> >> older
> >> version and the lib must be ABI-compatible anyway.
> > ... and this one is plainly wrong. binNMUs for rebuild against
> > dependency lib
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hendrik Sattler wrote:
>> Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 21:16 schrieb Thomas Viehmann:
>>> Hendrik Sattler wrote:
No, but you could manually set all stuff in Depends to the needed
versions. That would also work for the buildds, I guess.
>>> And bre
Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 21:16 schrieb Thomas Viehmann:
>> Hendrik Sattler wrote:
>>> No, but you could manually set all stuff in Depends to the needed
>>> versions. That would also work for the buildds, I guess.
>> And break at the next opportunity (binNMU, recompile, updat
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 21:16 schrieb Thomas Viehmann:
> Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> > No, but you could manually set all stuff in Depends to the needed
> > versions. That would also work for the buildds, I guess.
>
> And break at the next opportunity (binNMU, recompile, update in a
> hurry...).
If h
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 10:27 schrieb Frank Küster:
>> Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
>> problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
>> libssl from etch, and upload that to unstable? Â Aft
* Hendrik Sattler [Mon, 29 May 2006 20:58:19 +0200]:
> PS: I bravely accept some flames for this suggestion...
Sure, here, have some:
- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg01393.html
- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg00752.html
- http://lists.debian.org/debian-l
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 08:58:19PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 10:27 schrieb Frank Küster:
> > Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
> > problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
> > libssl from etch, and upload t
Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 10:27 schrieb Frank Küster:
>> Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
>> problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
>> libssl from etch, and upload that to unstable? After checking that it
>> w
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 10:27 schrieb Frank Küster:
> Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
> problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
> libssl from etch, and upload that to unstable? After checking that it
> works in unstable, of course.
* Mark Brown:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 10:27:45AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>
>> Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
>> problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
>> libssl from etch, and upload that to unstable? After checking that it
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 10:27:45AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
> problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
> libssl from etch, and upload that to unstable? After checking that it
> works in unstable,
On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:27:45 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
>problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
>libssl from etch, and upload that to unstable?
No, that won't fix the problem for
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmm. But openssl is in testing already, and bacula doesn't build-dep
>> on a newer version. Why does it matter?
>
> The *binary* packages require a newer version of openssl, they would
> be uninstallable in testing.
>
> http://packages.debian.org/uns
13 matches
Mail list logo
