On 2013-03-31 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 14:35:56 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Could you please remove gnutls28 3.0.22-3 from *unstable* to make it
possible to start testing the transition?
We don't handle unstable. You'll have to file a bug against
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 18:38:56 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2013-03-31 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 14:35:56 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Could you please remove gnutls28 3.0.22-3 from *unstable* to make it
possible to start testing the
On 2013-03-20 Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote:
On 2013-03-19 Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote:
[...]
Find attached a proposed patch. Its rather obvious downside is that it
will break on ports, due to using a negative list (all except) where
possible and a
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 14:35:56 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Could you please remove gnutls28 3.0.22-3 from *unstable* to make it
possible to start testing the transition?
We don't handle unstable. You'll have to file a bug against
ftp.debian.org for that.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
On 2013-03-19 Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote:
[...]
Find attached a proposed patch. Its rather obvious downside is that it
will break on ports, due to using a negative list (all except) where
possible and a positive list else:
[...]
Having slept over it I realize this is no
On 2013-03-18 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 19:26:10 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2013-03-17 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 16:00:29 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
2. If armel armhf mipsel break due to
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 20:06:38 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Find attached a proposed patch.
Forgot the attachment?
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 2013-03-19 Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote:
Find attached a proposed patch.
diff -Nru gnutls26-2.12.20/debian/changelog gnutls26-2.12.20/debian/changelog
--- gnutls26-2.12.20/debian/changelog 2013-02-04 19:44:26.0 +0100
+++ gnutls26-2.12.20/debian/changelog
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 19:26:10 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2013-03-17 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 16:00:29 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
2. If armel armhf mipsel break due to --disable-largefile stop using
--disable-largefile there and
On 2013-02-23 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
The plan seems ok to me in general.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
+# workaround for guile testsuite failure.
+ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_BUILD_ARCH),armel armhf mipsel))
+ DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_FLAGS +=
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 16:00:29 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
On 2013-02-23 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
The plan seems ok to me in general.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
+# workaround for guile testsuite failure.
+ifneq (,$(filter
On 2013-03-17 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 16:00:29 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
2. If armel armhf mipsel break due to --disable-largefile stop using
--disable-largefile there and stop providing guile-gnutls on these
archs.
OK I think I'm
On 2013-03-02 Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org wrote:
[...]
However generally speaking I don't think pulling guile-gnutls just to
get rid of --disable-largefile on armel, armhf and mipsel is necessary,
gnutls versions before 2.12.10-1 were built without large file support
even on
On 2013-03-01 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Find attached a proposed patch to build both guile-gnutls and
gnutls-bin from gnutls26 instead of gnutls28 for wheezy. Would this be
acceptable for an unstable upload targeted
Hi,
Andreas Metzler ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org skribis:
@*Ludovic*: To give you some context, we are planning to pull
gnutls28 from wheezy. If we also stopped shipping guile-gnutls instead
of proving it from gnutls 2.x again we could a) get rid of a package
without reverse dependencies and
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Find attached a proposed patch to build both guile-gnutls and
gnutls-bin from gnutls26 instead of gnutls28 for wheezy. Would this be
acceptable for an unstable upload targeted for testing? Afterwards
gnutls28 could be pulled from
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 19:33:14 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Judging from the fact that 2.12.20 tarball does not include
largefile.m4 I guess the configure option is not necessary in 2.12.20.
- If you prefer to I can try without.
So you're saying gnutls26 currently is built for 32bit
On 2013-02-24 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 19:33:14 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Judging from the fact that 2.12.20 tarball does not include
largefile.m4 I guess the configure option is not necessary in 2.12.20.
- If you prefer to I can try without.
So
On 2013-02-20 Dominique Dumont d...@debian.org wrote:
Le dimanche 10 février 2013 16:26:40, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
PS: My first idea was to simply pull gnutls28, providing guile-gnutls
and gnutls-bin from gnutls26 again. However there is a reverse
dependency (pan) on libgnutls28 in testing
The plan seems ok to me in general.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
+# workaround for guile testsuite failure.
+ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_BUILD_ARCH),armel armhf mipsel))
+ DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_FLAGS += --disable-largefile
+endif
+
Disabling lfs because of
On 2013-02-23 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
The plan seems ok to me in general.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 18:37:12 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
+# workaround for guile testsuite failure.
+ifneq (,$(filter $(DEB_BUILD_ARCH),armel armhf mipsel))
+DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_FLAGS +=
Le dimanche 10 février 2013 16:26:40, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
PS: My first idea was to simply pull gnutls28, providing guile-gnutls
and gnutls-bin from gnutls26 again. However there is a reverse
dependency (pan) on libgnutls28 in testing nowadays. Pan is not
distributable currently
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:54:52 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello,
sadly CVE-2013-0169 also (see 699891) applies to gnutls28.
I have just uploaded gnutls28_3.0.22-3 to unstable, pretty much with
the same set of fixes as gnutls26 2.12.20-4 to unstable. I am not
sure how you would prefer
On 2013-02-10 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:54:52 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
sadly CVE-2013-0169 also (see 699891) applies to gnutls28.
[...]
PS: My first idea was to simply pull gnutls28, providing guile-gnutls
and gnutls-bin from gnutls26 again.
Hello,
sadly CVE-2013-0169 also (see 699891) applies to gnutls28.
I have just uploaded gnutls28_3.0.22-3 to unstable, pretty much with
the same set of fixes as gnutls26 2.12.20-4 to unstable. I am not
sure how you would prefer to have this fixed in testing.
Could 3.0.22-3 propagate to testing?
25 matches
Mail list logo