Bug#827061: Please commit to OpenSSL 1.0.2 in stretch now not constantly re-evaluateing

2016-11-24 Thread Niels Thykier
Sam Hartman: > > My understanding of the current plan is that we're adding openssl 1.1.0 > to unstable, but will make a decision about whether to drop libssl1.0.2 > later. > > That's really frustrating for the rest of the ecosystem--our users and > our upstreams, and I'd ask the release team to

Bug#827061: Please commit to OpenSSL 1.0.2 in stretch now not constantly re-evaluateing

2016-11-01 Thread Russ Allbery
Sam Hartman writes: > Shibboleth comprises opensaml, xmltooling, heavily depends on > xml-security-c and shibboleth-sp2. > Ferenc Wágner (copied) has been handling the Shibboleth packaging and > has an understanding of where the upstream efforts are. There's been >

Bug#827061: Please commit to OpenSSL 1.0.2 in stretch now not constantly re-evaluateing

2016-11-01 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Sebastian" == Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes: Sebastian> On 2016-10-31 11:16:38 [-0400], Sam Hartman wrote: >> At least one of the clusters of packages I'm involved >> in--shibboleth and moonshot will require some real upstream >> porting effort.

Bug#827061: Please commit to OpenSSL 1.0.2 in stretch now not constantly re-evaluateing

2016-11-01 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2016-10-31 11:16:38 [-0400], Sam Hartman wrote: > At least one of the clusters of packages I'm involved in--shibboleth and > moonshot will require some real upstream porting effort. > That's under way in a time scale that will work for buster, but is very > unlikely to meet the stretch freeze

Bug#827061: Please commit to OpenSSL 1.0.2 in stretch now not constantly re-evaluateing

2016-10-31 Thread Sam Hartman
My understanding of the current plan is that we're adding openssl 1.1.0 to unstable, but will make a decision about whether to drop libssl1.0.2 later. That's really frustrating for the rest of the ecosystem--our users and our upstreams, and I'd ask the release team to commit now to 1.0.2 being