How do I stop these emails On Mon, Mar 21, 2022, 3:27 PM Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-03-20 at 22:00 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > > Dear Sebastian, Kurt, > > > > On 19-03-2022 12:33, Adam D Barratt wrote: > > > Upload details > > > ============== > > > > > > Package: openssl > > > Version: 1.1.1n-0+deb10u1 > > > > > > Explanation: new upstream release > > > > We're seeing a regression in buster in the autopkgtest of gnutls28 > > with > > the new version of openssl on all tested architectures. Can you > > please > > have a look and advise? (bullseye doesn't seem to have the test > > anymore, > > hence it doesn't fail). > > Thanks to both Kurt and Sebastian for quickly identifying the issue > here, and to Adrian Bunk for the libnet-ssleay-perl fix. > > There's been some continued discussion today as to whether we feel > comfortable releasing the update with the 10.12 point release when we > have only been finding such issues during the week leading up to the > point release. > > I fully appreciate that the large delays in getting to this point were > mostly on our part, and that postponing the release until 10.13 would > likely be frustrating, but the worry is that we don't have a good view > of the changes that might be user-affecting in order to be comfortable > with potential behaviour changes landing in oldstable - for example, > the libnet-ssleay-perl issue appears to be related to 1024-bit keys no > longer being accepted by default; while in general this is obviously a > desirable behaviour, it is nonetheless a change in the behaviour > compared to the current package in buster. > > The situation is also slightly complicated by the fact the debian- > installer uses OpenSSL internally, so we are also under internal time > pressure to reach a conclusion, in order to be able to proceed with the > installer build for the point release, rather than being able to leave > the decision until the end of the week. > > Thank you for bearing with us. > > Regards, > > Adam > >
