Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

Kurt Roeckx (2017-06-05): > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 11:33:57AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Kurt Roeckx (2017-06-04): > > > So I've uploaded openssl 1.1.0f-2 > > > > Source debdiff lgtm from -1, and installation over https works fine, > > ACK. > > So I

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

Kurt Roeckx (2017-06-05): > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 11:33:57AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Kurt Roeckx (2017-06-04): > > > So I've uploaded openssl 1.1.0f-2 > > > > Source debdiff lgtm from -1, and installation over https works fine, > > ACK. > > So I

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 11:33:57AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Kurt Roeckx (2017-06-04): > > So I've uploaded openssl 1.1.0f-2 > > Source debdiff lgtm from -1, and installation over https works fine, > ACK. So I actually have a new version I want to upload: Modified:

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

Kurt Roeckx (2017-06-04): > So I've uploaded openssl 1.1.0f-2 Source debdiff lgtm from -1, and installation over https works fine, ACK. > and openssl1.0 1.0.2l-2 Bare metal check with WPA is next on my todo list. KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 06:53:29PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Kurt Roeckx (2017-06-04): > > So I changed it this instead: > > dh_makeshlibs -a -V --add-udeb="libcrypto1.1-udeb" -Xengines > > > > the shlib files now looks like: > > libcrypto 1.1 libssl1.1 (>= 1.1.0f) > >

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

Kurt Roeckx (2017-06-04): > So I changed it this instead: > dh_makeshlibs -a -V --add-udeb="libcrypto1.1-udeb" -Xengines > > the shlib files now looks like: > libcrypto 1.1 libssl1.1 (>= 1.1.0f) > libssl 1.1 libssl1.1 (>= 1.1.0f) > udeb: libcrypto 1.1 libcrypto1.1-udeb (>=

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:09:00AM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Kurt Roeckx: > > [...] > >> > >> Maybe file this as an RC bug against openssl so that it isn't forgotten > >> about, but ignore it for r0? > > > > So I have prepared an update. Should I upload it? > > > > [...] > > > > > > Kurt >

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

Kurt Roeckx: > [...] >> >> Maybe file this as an RC bug against openssl so that it isn't forgotten >> about, but ignore it for r0? > > So I have prepared an update. Should I upload it? > > [...] > > > Kurt > Ack from here, so if KiBi is ok with it, then please go ahead. Thanks, ~Niels

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 05:29:21AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Niels Thykier (2017-06-03): > > Kurt Roeckx: > > > Package: release.debian.org > > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > > Usertags: unblock > > > Severity: normal > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

Niels Thykier (2017-06-03): > Kurt Roeckx: > > Package: release.debian.org > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: unblock > > Severity: normal > > > > Hi, > > > > I've uploaded a new upstream version of openssl that contains bug > > fixes. The Debian

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

Kurt Roeckx: > Package: release.debian.org > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: unblock > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > I've uploaded a new upstream version of openssl that contains bug > fixes. The Debian changelog says: >* New upstream version > - Fix regression

Bug#863472: unblock: openssl/1.1.0f-1

Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Severity: normal Hi, I've uploaded a new upstream version of openssl that contains bug fixes. The Debian changelog says: * New upstream version - Fix regression in req -x509 (Closes: #839575)