On 2023-10-02 13:41:17 [+0200], Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt (2023-10-02):
> > Unfortunately, the version format change from -0+deb11uX to -0~deb11uX
> > has broken the installer.
> >
> > The udebs end up with dependencies of the form ">= 1.1.1w", which
> > 1.1.1w-0~deb11u1 doesn't fu
Adam D. Barratt (2023-10-02):
> Unfortunately, the version format change from -0+deb11uX to -0~deb11uX
> has broken the installer.
>
> The udebs end up with dependencies of the form ">= 1.1.1w", which
> 1.1.1w-0~deb11u1 doesn't fulfil. Assuming I'm not missing anything,
> could we have an upload
On Wed, 2023-09-13 at 22:48 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> OpenSSL upstream released 1.1.1w which the last stable update to the
> 1.1.1 series because it is EOL since last Monday.
> The update is fairly small and contains a few fixes for memory leaks.
> The mentioned CVE
Hi,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior (2023-09-13):
> Package: release.debian.org
> Control: affects -1 + src:openssl
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: pu
> Tags: bullseye
> Severity: normal
>
> OpenSSL upstream released 1.1.1w which the last stable upda
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 09:30:46AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have observed debian-installer on some architectures such m68k, powerpc and
> sparc64
> after the openssl transition. The issue does not affect all architectures,
> ia64, hppa
> and p
Hi!
I have observed debian-installer on some architectures such m68k, powerpc and
sparc64
after the openssl transition. The issue does not affect all architectures,
ia64, hppa
and ppc64 are not affected, for example.
The failure looks like this:
Building dependency tree... Done
libcrypto3
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:22:57PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-03-18 14:51:32 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Boo. Hope you're doing better.
>
> Thanks, yes.
>
> > > I would also do the upload for Buster, would that work? I remember
> > > that
> > > the packages, that br
On 2022-03-18 14:51:32 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Boo. Hope you're doing better.
Thanks, yes.
> > I would also do the upload for Buster, would that work? I remember
> > that
> > the packages, that broken, were already uploaded a few cycles ago.
>
> Also as 1.1.1n?
Yes.
> I assume there
On Fri, 2022-03-18 at 14:12 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-03-18 09:21:50 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Apologies if the status here got confused - based on the above, I
> > was
> > assuming that in the absence of a negative response you would
> > proceed
> > with the 1.1.1
On 2022-03-18 09:21:50 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Apologies if the status here got confused - based on the above, I was
> assuming that in the absence of a negative response you would proceed
> with the 1.1.1n-0+deb11u1 plan. For complete clarity, please feel free
> to do so, bearing in mind
On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 08:45 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-02-19 17:57:25 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Feel free to upload; we'll wait for the d-i ack before accepting
> > the
> > package into p-u.
>
> There will be the release of 1.1.1n on Tuesday 15th March 2022
> inclu
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior (2022-03-09):
> On 2022-02-19 17:57:25 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Feel free to upload; we'll wait for the d-i ack before accepting the
> > package into p-u.
>
> There will be the release of 1.1.1n on Tuesday 15th March 2022 including
> a security fix. Therefore
On 2022-02-19 17:57:25 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Feel free to upload; we'll wait for the d-i ack before accepting the
> package into p-u.
There will be the release of 1.1.1n on Tuesday 15th March 2022 including
a security fix. Therefore I will:
- prepare a security release against 1.1.1k-1
On 2022-02-19 17:57:25 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
> Feel free to upload; we'll wait for the d-i ack before accepting the
> package into p-u.
Okay. The Bullseye package has been uploaded.
> Regards,
>
> Adam
Sebastian
On Sat, 2022-02-19 at 18:52 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-02-19 17:04:16 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i
> …
> > Thanks. Assuming the above is still accurate, then this looks good
> > to
> > me.
> >
> > As the package builds a udeb, it will
On 2022-02-19 17:04:16 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i
…
> Thanks. Assuming the above is still accurate, then this looks good to
> me.
>
> As the package builds a udeb, it will need a d-i ack; tagging and CCing
> accordingly.
I'm confused. May I upload or do I w
Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i
On Tue, 2022-01-11 at 00:00 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This is an update to the latest stable update of the openssl package
> provided by upstream. It contains fixes for bugs which were not
> identified as security critical but still wor
On 2021-03-22 19:52:00 [+0100], To Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I will prepare 1.1.1k for unstable, do buster-security based on
> > 1.1.1d-0+deb10u5 and then come back with an updated pu :)
New round. I prepared a pu for Buster based on OpenSSL 1.1.1k. The
unstable release migrated to testi
Resending because I managed to accidently clear TO:
On 2021-03-22 19:48:31 [+0100], Cc 959...@bugs.debian.org wrote:
> On 2021-02-24 23:23:07 [+0100], To Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On 2021-02-10 21:52:46 [+0100], To Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > OpenSSL upstream announced [0] 1.1.1j for
On 2021-02-24 23:23:07 [+0100], To Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On 2021-02-10 21:52:46 [+0100], To Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > OpenSSL upstream announced [0] 1.1.1j for next Tuesday with a security
> > fix classified as MODERATE [1].
So this happened. OpenSSL upstream announced [0] 1.1.1k fo
On 2021-02-01 23:50:03 [+0100], To Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> in case someone wants to test.
> I think the ship for this pu is sailing without me but I'm ready for the
> next cruise :)
OpenSSL upstream announced [0] 1.1.1j for next Tuesday with a security
fix classified as MODERATE [
hope this is the end of the regressions in the X509 code.
> >
> > So there is something else now:
> > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/13931
> > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13982
>
> So what is the plan here? Upload to unstable and prepare a pu onc
is something else now:
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/13931
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13982
So what is the plan here? Upload to unstable and prepare a pu once it
migrate to testing or right away?
> Kurt
Sebastian
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 07:03:37PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> There are a whole bunch of other issues and pull requests related to
> this. I hope this is the end of the regressions in the X509 code.
So there is something else now:
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/13931
ible acceptance into p-u.
in case it helps, I uploaded
https://breakpoint.cc/openssl-pu.tar
| $ sha512sum openssl-pu.tar
|
1a3df2e37aa9312a378046691794bf7d7d72570ed9ade7ffbf50f87c8c8a7dd5e671a7f704fc4f1ebdbada1dda3007a5db24b426deefd33fff39b81e7be38aa3
openssl-pu.tar
containing the source
Adam D. Barratt (2021-01-25):
> KiBi - I'm assuming that it would be much easier for you to check d-i
> against the new OpenSSL version if it were already in p-u?
Not really *much* easier, to be honest. I can definitely build a package
locally given a source debdiff, or slightly bett
On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 12:25 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-01-22 16:38:28 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Both would be good, please.
>
> Here is the complete diff against the last openssl release in Buster.
Thanks.
I realise that this has been dragging on
On 2021-01-22 16:38:28 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Assuming that a patched m2crypto will also build fine against openssl
> 1.1.1d, then there's no reason that the two shouldn't proceed in
> parallel (i.e. feel free to file the m2crypto request already).
Yes, it does. Bu
4,9 @@ openssl (1.1.1i-0+deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium
- CVE-2019-1551 (Overflow in the x64_64 Montgomery squaring procedure),
(Closes: #947949).
* Update symbol list.
+ * Apply two patches from upstream to address x509 related regressions.
- -- Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Wed, 06 Jan 2
don't know about any other regressions in 1.1.1.
>
> The openssl package migrated to testing.
> I would prepare the pu package for Buster. Should I post here the
> complete diff or an incremental containing only the new patches?
Both would be good, please.
FWIW we're also fig
On 2021-01-16 19:14:53 [+0100], Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> So I went over the open issues and pull requests, and currently
> don't see a reason not to upload it to unstable with those 2
> patches. I don't know about any other regressions in 1.1.1.
The openssl package migrated
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 09:13:49PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-01-14 19:03:37 [+0100], Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > Do you have pointers to upstream issues?
> >
> > There are a whole bunch of other issues and pull requests related to
> > this. I hope this is the end of the regres
On 2021-01-14 19:03:37 [+0100], Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Do you have pointers to upstream issues?
>
> There are a whole bunch of other issues and pull requests related to
> this. I hope this is the end of the regressions in the X509 code.
Okay. Please ping once this gets sorted out and I will prepe
ssue is a different story and is still open in BTS
> > > (#977655). I *think* someone added an override or the ci-system was
> > > kind to Kurt/me and looked the other way :)
> > > The m2crypto package in stable and bpo will FTBFS with the updated
> > > openssl p
tem was
> > kind to Kurt/me and looked the other way :)
> > The m2crypto package in stable and bpo will FTBFS with the updated
> > openssl package.
> >
> > I'm not aware of other issues.
>
> I think there are at least 2 upstream issues since the 1.1.1i
>
> The m2crypto package in stable and bpo will FTBFS with the updated
> openssl package.
>
> I'm not aware of other issues.
I think there are at least 2 upstream issues since the 1.1.1i
release we want to fix first. As far as I know, they haven't been
fixed upstream yet.
Kurt
On 2020-11-24 20:18:15 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> That would be preferable at this point, yes, sorry. We should try and
> make sure it's sorted soon afterwards though, to avoid things getting
> stuck again.
I will set up an alarm on my side :)
> At some point, could we please have a combin
On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 21:04 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-11-20 17:24:30 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Predictably we're again quite close to a point release. :-( (One
> > week from freeze, specifically.)
>
> oh.
In fairness, given an approximately two month cycle, we're
On 2020-11-20 17:24:30 [+], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Predictably we're again quite close to a point release. :-( (One week
> from freeze, specifically.)
oh.
> Looking at the upstream issues regarding certificate validation changes
> between 1.1.1e and f/g, #11456 appears to have been addresse
On Sun, 2020-11-15 at 11:29 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> control: retitle -1 buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1h-1
>
> On 2020-05-02 22:34:40 [+0100], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > > Do we have any feeling for how widespread such certificates
> > > >
control: retitle -1 buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1h-1
On 2020-05-02 22:34:40 [+0100], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > Do we have any feeling for how widespread such certificates might
> > > be?
> > > The fact that there have been two different upstream reports isn'
On Sat, 2020-05-02 at 22:29 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-05-02 20:32:01 [+0100], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-05-02 at 18:36 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > I'm fairly late, I know.
> >
> > Just a little. :-( P
On 2020-05-02 20:32:01 [+0100], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-05-02 at 18:36 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > I'm fairly late, I know.
>
> Just a little. :-( Particularly as OpenSSL builds udebs.
>
> CCing KiBi and -boot so they're aware of the d
On Sat, 2020-05-02 at 18:36 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I'm fairly late, I know.
Just a little. :-( Particularly as OpenSSL builds udebs.
CCing KiBi and -boot so they're aware of the discussion, but this does
come quite late.
> The last update was addressed via DS
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 931760 debootstrap
Bug #931760 [libnet-ssleay-perl] doesn't pull perl-openssl-defaults in
debootstrap
Bug reassigned from package 'libnet-ssleay-perl' to 'debootstrap'.
No longer marked as found in versio
Cyril Brulebois:
> Hi Kurt,
>
> Kurt Roeckx (2019-04-19):
>> Can you please unblock openssl. It fixes 2 important bugs.
>> debdiff attached.
>
> (And thanks for the cc.)
>
> I have been able to confirm during my work on haveged (#923675) that
> your upload
Hi Kurt,
Kurt Roeckx (2019-04-19):
> Can you please unblock openssl. It fixes 2 important bugs.
> debdiff attached.
(And thanks for the cc.)
I have been able to confirm during my work on haveged (#923675) that
your upload indeed fixes the wget issues we had in d-i (#926315); so
thanks al
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Hi,
Can you please unblock openssl. It fixes 2 important bugs.
debdiff attached.
Kurt
diff -Nru openssl-1.1.1b/debian/changelog openssl-1.1.1b/debian/changelog
--- openssl-1.1.1b/debian/changelog
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 22:57, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:23:19PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > 1726 write(2, "Disabling SSL due to encountered errors.\n", 41) = 41
>
> Looking at the source, about the only reason I can see to get that
> is that SSL_CTX_new() failed.
n more configurable.
> > However, the behavior of OPENSSL_config() was lost in the process,
> > having it suddenly generate errors it didn't previously, which is not
> > how it's documented to behave.
> >
> > A simple setting of de
how it's documented to behave.
>
> A simple setting of default flags fixes this problem.
>
> Fixes #8528
>
> Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell
> (Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8533)
>
> (cherry picked from commit 905c9a72a7087015
g() was lost in the process,
having it suddenly generate errors it didn't previously, which is not
how it's documented to behave.
A simple setting of default flags fixes this problem.
Fixes #8528
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell
(Merged from https:/
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:57:12PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 11:23:19PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > 1726 write(2, "Disabling SSL due to encountered errors.\n", 41) = 41
>
> wget in buster actually seems to be linked to gnutls, and trying
> other applications ju
FIG
if the options already include OPENSSL_INIT_NO_LOAD_CONFIG.
4. Don't set up atexit() handlers when called with opts equal to
OPENSSL_INIT_BASE_ONLY (this flag should only be used alone).
Reviewed-by: Bernd Edlinger
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell
(Merged from htt
Hi again,
Cyril Brulebois (2019-04-03):
> I'm pretty sure we had successes with wget/https within d-i not so long
> ago (i.e. during the last BSP at Mozilla's, past week), and there were no
> changes on the openssl side in the meanwhile.
Or maybe my explicit testing didn&#x
> > > fails in Buster alpha installer, when used from a booted netinst iso
> > > in a tty. It also means that fetch-url fails, and thus one cannot use
> > > https preseeding.
> > >
> > > A fix/workaround, is $ touch /usr/lib/ssl/openssl.cnf it appears tha
Your message dated Sun, 10 Jun 2018 22:04:54 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#895074: fixed in debian-installer 20180610
has caused the Debian Bug report #895074,
regarding debian-installer: Please replace 'c_rehash' with 'openssl rehash'
to be marked as done.
This
Control: tag -1 patch pending
Hi Sebastian,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior (2018-04-07):
> Source: debian-installer
> Version: 20171204
> Severity: normal
> Tags: sid buster
> User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> Usertags: c_rehash
>
> This package is using th
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 patch pending
Bug #895074 [src:debian-installer] debian-installer: Please replace 'c_rehash'
with 'openssl rehash'
Added tag(s) pending and patch.
--
895074: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=895074
Debian Bug Tra
Source: debian-installer
Version: 20171204
Severity: normal
Tags: sid buster
User: pkg-openssl-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: c_rehash
This package is using the c_rehash command which is part of the
openssl package. The c_rehash script is considered by upstream as a
fallback script and
Cyril Brulebois:
> Cyril Brulebois (2017-02-21):
>> I think that should work, yes. Please let me know when that's happened,
>> and I'll do the testing as soon as possible.
>
> This has happened, and building a netboot-gtk image with stretch udebs
> and with p-u enabled got me a 1.18-4.1 version o
Cyril Brulebois (2017-02-21):
> I think that should work, yes. Please let me know when that's happened,
> and I'll do the testing as soon as possible.
This has happened, and building a netboot-gtk image with stretch udebs
and with p-u enabled got me a 1.18-4.1 version of the wget-udeb package,
wi
Niels Thykier (2017-02-20):
> I did and I agree on the testing part. Would a "no-change rebuild" tpu
> upload of wget be a solution for you? That should ensure we control
> when the wget change migrates to testing (which is somewhat more
> difficult with binNMUs).
I think that should work, yes.
Cyril Brulebois:
> Niels Thykier (2017-02-19):
>> [...]
>
> Hrm. You mentioned on IRC you were pondering possibly rebuilding wget
> against 1.1 for stretch; if that happens, this needs d-i testing…
>
>
> KiBi.
>
I did and I agree on the testing part. Would a "no-change rebuild" tpu
upload of
Niels Thykier (2017-02-19):
> Cyril Brulebois:
> > We have this right now:
> >
> > wget-udeb | 1.18-4| testing → built against 1.0.2
> > wget-udeb | 1.19.1-1 | unstable → built against 1.1
> >
> > If we're not getting a newer wget for stretch (at least I didn't find
> > a
Cyril Brulebois:
> Kurt Roeckx (2017-02-18):
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 06:16:28PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>>> How soon do you want to see this package in testing? Given I've just
>>> fixed a few things related to https support in d-i, it would be nice if
>>> I were able to perform a full te
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:33:20AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx (2017-02-18):
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 06:16:28PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > How soon do you want to see this package in testing? Given I've just
> > > fixed a few things related to https support in d-i, it
Kurt Roeckx (2017-02-18):
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 06:16:28PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > How soon do you want to see this package in testing? Given I've just
> > fixed a few things related to https support in d-i, it would be nice if
> > I were able to perform a full test with https here,
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Hi,
There was a new upstream release fixing a high severity security
issue.
The changelog entry is:
openssl (1.1.0e-1) unstable; urgency=high
* New upstream version
- Fixes CVE
ertags: unblock
>>> Severity: normal
>>>
>>> Please unblock package openssl. It contains a redo of the rules file
>>> among other packaging related changes which did not migrate in time due
>>> to the new release of the d version which fixes 3 CVE bug
On 2017-02-13 18:01:34 [+0100], Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 04/02/17 15:20, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: unblock
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > Please
Hi,
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (2017-02-13):
> On 04/02/17 15:20, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Please unblock package openssl. It contains a redo of the rules file
> > among other packaging related changes which did not migrate in time
> > due to the new release of the
On 04/02/17 15:20, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
> Severity: normal
>
> Please unblock package openssl. It contains a redo of the rules file
> among other packaging related
On 2016-06-24 10:35:43 [+0200], Yann Soubeyrand wrote:
> Le jeudi 23 juin 2016 à 23:13 +0200, jcris...@debian.org a écrit :
> > That doesn't sound suitable for a stable update, sorry.
> OK, I understand.
Closing with no change then.
Sebastian
Le jeudi 23 juin 2016 à 23:13 +0200, jcris...@debian.org a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:55:54 +0200, Yann Soubeyrand wrote:
>
> > Le jeudi 23 juin 2016 à 11:20 +0200, k...@roeckx.be a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:58:54AM +0200, Yann Soubeyrand wrote:
>
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:55:54 +0200, Yann Soubeyrand wrote:
> Le jeudi 23 juin 2016 à 11:20 +0200, k...@roeckx.be a écrit :
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:58:54AM +0200, Yann Soubeyrand wrote:
> > > Package: openssl
> > > Severity: normal
> > > Version
Le jeudi 23 juin 2016 à 11:20 +0200, k...@roeckx.be a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:58:54AM +0200, Yann Soubeyrand wrote:
> > Package: openssl
> > Severity: normal
> > Version: 1.0.1t-1+deb8u2
> > X-Debbugs-CC: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org
> > X-Debbugs
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:58:54AM +0200, Yann Soubeyrand wrote:
> Package: openssl
> Severity: normal
> Version: 1.0.1t-1+deb8u2
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-rele...@lists.debian.org
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-boot@lists.debian.org
>
> Hi,
>
> Marga Manterola provided a patc
Any update on this bug? I'm quite interested in seeing debian-installer
https preseeding support in stretch, and this bug is the first step
towards that.
- Josh Triplett
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 01:10:07PM +, Marga Manterola wrote:
> I've noticed that experimental has a soversion bump for openssl, so I
> created this patch against the version in unstable. If you want me to
> create the patch against the version in experimental, please let me kno
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Hi,
1.0.1k-2 contains security fixes. Could you please unblock it?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
On 2015-01-25 22:16, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Control: tag -1 confirmed
>
> Kurt Roeckx (2015-01-20):
>> Can you ACK that, or is there someone else in the d-i team that
>> can do that?
>
> Not at the time this unblock was requested or pinged, but right now:
> yes.
>
> Mraw,
> KiBi.
>
Added -u
Control: tag -1 confirmed
Kurt Roeckx (2015-01-20):
> Can you ACK that, or is there someone else in the d-i team that
> can do that?
Not at the time this unblock was requested or pinged, but right now:
yes.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
; > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: unblock
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've uploaded a new upstream version of openssl to unstable. This
> > contains fixes for 7 security issues affecting jessie. It also
> > contains a lot
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:43:36AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Can openssl 0.9.8k-3 be pushed to testing? It fixed a number
> of security issues.
>
Unblocked.
Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key - http://www.hal
Hi,
Can openssl 0.9.8k-3 be pushed to testing? It fixed a number
of security issues.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can openssl 0.9.8g-16 be hinted to testing?
>
> It fixes a security issue.
>
> It has a udeb.
unblocked
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
Can openssl 0.9.8g-16 be hinted to testing?
It fixes a security issue.
It has a udeb.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please hint openssl in testing? The changelog:
>* Don't give the warning about security updates when upgrading
> from etch since it doesn't h
Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>
>> Could you please hint openssl in testing? The changelog:
>>* Don't give the warning about security updates when upgrading
>> from etch since it doesn't have
Hi,
Could you please hint openssl in testing? The changelog:
* Don't give the warning about security updates when upgrading
from etch since it doesn't have any known security problems.
* Automaticly use engines that succesfully initialised. Patch
from the 0.9.8h upstre
Claes wrote:
>> >> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > I would like to fix this for lenny. Would such a patch be acceptable?
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >
>> > Can that change be hinted to testing?
>&g
d like to fix this for lenny. Would such a patch be acceptable?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> > Can that change be hinted to testing?
>
> Could you paste the changelog?
openssl (0.9.8g-13) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Fix a problem with tlsext preventing firefox 3 from
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 10:41:13PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I would like to fix this for lenny. Would such a patch be acceptable?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Can that change be hinted to testing?
Could you paste the changelog
t; > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:21:49AM -0600, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> >> Package: openssl
> >> Version: 0.9.8g-12
> >> Severity: important
> >>
> >>
> >> There is a bug in the currently packaged version of OpenSSL that generates
> >
* Kurt Roeckx [Wed, 07 May 2008 21:09:15 +0200]:
> I've just uploaded openssl 0.9.8g-9 which contains an important security
> fix. Please let it migrate to testing.
This has been unblocked by aba after ack from D-I team.
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó
Hi,
I've just uploaded openssl 0.9.8g-9 which contains an important security
fix. Please let it migrate to testing.
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kurt,
am Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:40:42PM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> Could you please hint openssl 0.9.8g-8 in testing?
unblocked. Will go in as soon as the hppa build is installed.
Cheers,
Philipp Kern
--
.''`. Philipp Kern Deb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please hint openssl 0.9.8g-8 in testing?
Ack!
- --
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
- -
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UI
Hi,
Could you please hint openssl 0.9.8g-8 in testing?
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
