Your message dated Fri, 27 Dec 2013 16:04:28 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: [Pkg-openssl-devel] Bug#733223: libssl-dev: breaks source
compatibility with ruby 2.1.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #733223,
regarding libssl-dev: breaks source compatibility with ruby 2.1.0
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
733223: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=733223
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libssl-dev
Version: 1.0.1e-6
Severity: normal
The recently released ruby 2.1.0 builds with 1.0.1e-4 but not with >=1.0.1e-5.
See also: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/488
There's patches and workarounds floating about to solve this from the ruby
side, but am I correct in assuming that things should continue to build within
the same upstream_version, even if you bumped the debian_revision?
Regards,
-- Mourad DC
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.12-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages libssl-dev depends on:
ii libssl1.0.0 1.0.1e-6
ii zlib1g-dev 1:1.2.8.dfsg-1
Versions of packages libssl-dev recommends:
pn libssl-doc <none>
libssl-dev suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 03:44:34PM +0100, Mourad De Clerck wrote:
> On 27/12/13 14:30, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >I'm not sure what ruby is trying to do with it, it probably
> >shouldn't be trying to do whatever it's doing.
>
> You're most likely right; I just wanted to ensure this wasn't an
> issue for other upstream sources out there. I didn't expect builds
> to break while using the same version/different debian revision of a
> library.
That define did say it didn't have any effect the past 8 years,
and they needed the bit for something else. That means if old
version try to set that bit for whatever reason it will trigger
different compatibilty behavior. But there is little we can do
about it and shouldn't break anything.
> Anyway, I'll trust your judgement: feel free to close this bug with
> a WONTFIX or a DONTDOTHATTHEN or something :)
So I'm closing it.
Kurt
--- End Message ---
