* Hendrik Sattler [Mon, 29 May 2006 20:58:19 +0200]:
> PS: I bravely accept some flames for this suggestion...
Sure, here, have some:
- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg01393.html
- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg00752.html
- http://lists.debian.org/debian-l
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 08:58:19PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 10:27 schrieb Frank Küster:
> > Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
> > problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
> > libssl from etch, and upload t
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 10:27 schrieb Frank Küster:
> Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
> problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
> libssl from etch, and upload that to unstable? After checking that it
> works in unstable, of course.
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 10:27:45AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
> problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
> libssl from etch, and upload that to unstable? After checking that it
> works in unstable,
On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:27:45 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
>problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
>libssl from etch, and upload that to unstable?
No, that won't fix the problem for
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmm. But openssl is in testing already, and bacula doesn't build-dep
>> on a newer version. Why does it matter?
>
> The *binary* packages require a newer version of openssl, they would
> be uninstallable in testing.
>
> http://packages.debian.org/uns
6 matches
Mail list logo