On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 07:39:04AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:46:51 +0930 > Ron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 07:09:04AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:12:20 +0930 > > > Ron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:16:18PM +0100, David Goodenough wrote: > > > > > Actually it is openssl-blacklist that contains openssl-vulnkey, and > > > > > in sid openssl depends on that. And as openssl-vulnkey is written in > > > > > python it is rather needed. > > If openssl did depend on the blacklist that would be a Policy violation > as it would make a circular dependency - the blacklist depends on > openssl, not vice versa. > > Is something else bringing in the blacklist?
Looks like ssl-cert and openvpn are the prime candidates for dragging that in as a hard dep. A bunch of other packages depend on ssl-cert. > OK, misread that but openssl itself doesn't depend on the blacklist, do > you really need the SSL blacklist itself on an embedded device? Depends on the device I guess. Mostly I've just noticed that python is getting near impossible to get rid of on any $real system, and the reasons for that are mostly quite spurious like this one. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
