Re: openssl transition

2016-11-02 Thread Adam Majer
On 27/10/16 07:39 AM, Antti J ä rvinen wrote: Jörg Frings-Fürst writes: > I have read the discussion about the openssl transition here again. Possibly referring to https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=827061 ?? > - The parallel use of release 1.0 and 1.1 will not be p

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-30 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Antti Järvinen wrote: > While patching -DOPENSSL_API_COMPAT=0x1010L will help a lot but > code changes are still required in addition to this flag, many > applications allocate OpenSSL data-structures in stack and this is not >

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-30 Thread Michael Meskes
> Well, most upstreams will want to support OpenSSL 1.0 for a little > while longer (lots of other distributions are still on OpenSSL 1.0 > for the foreseeable future), so any patch that has a chance of > getting accepted by most upstreams will still need to support 1.0 > as well as 1.1. True,

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-30 Thread Christian Seiler
On 10/30/2016 11:03 AM, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:04:21PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: >> Well, ideally it'll compile with both OpenSSL 1.0.2 and 1.1 and >> therefore be binNMU-able. (This has the advantage that such a >> patch is much more likely to get accepted by

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-30 Thread Michael Meskes
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:04:21PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: > Well, ideally it'll compile with both OpenSSL 1.0.2 and 1.1 and > therefore be binNMU-able. (This has the advantage that such a > patch is much more likely to get accepted by upstream.) In that > case you can upload a version that

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-29 Thread Christian Seiler
ch is much more likely to get accepted by upstream.) In that case you can upload a version that Closes: #nnn the RC bug. When I initially packaged open-isns I did have the looming OpenSSL transition on my mind, so I added a to makes open-isns build against both 1.0 and 1.0.2 (and also 1.0.1, for bac

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-29 Thread Michael Meskes
> - The parallel use of release 1.0 and 1.1 will not be pursued? > > - Why is the transition started with 0 (zero) good packages (from 552)? > ...  May I add one more, and actually pretty pressing question? How are we supposed to upload "fixed" packages? I have two that are said to be removed

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-28 Thread Ian Jackson
Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: openssl transition"): > Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-10-28 01:00:25) > > I keep meaning to try to find a way to figure out what package(s) it > > might be, that isn't eyeballing the list. > > Try check the email headers - in my ex

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-27 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-10-28 01:00:25) > Russ Allbery writes ("Re: openssl transition"): > > The release team asked for all the OpenSSL bugs to be upgraded to > > RC, which is probably what triggered this discussion. (I was a bit > > surprised too; that's quite

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-27 Thread Ian Jackson
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: openssl transition"): > The release team asked for all the OpenSSL bugs to be upgraded to RC, > which is probably what triggered this discussion. (I was a bit surprised > too; that's quite a lot of packages to yank from testing by the middle of > n

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-27 Thread Russ Allbery
Dimitri John Ledkov writes: > However no transition has started. Transitions only start once the new > ABI is uploaded into unstable, which has not happened. The release team asked for all the OpenSSL bugs to be upgraded to RC, which is probably what triggered this discussion.

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-27 Thread Antti Järvinen
Jörg Frings-Fürst writes: > I have read the discussion about the openssl transition here again. Possibly referring to https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=827061 ?? > - The parallel use of release 1.0 and 1.1 will not be pursued? Might be highly problematic, having purpos

Re: openssl transition

2016-10-27 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
Hello, On 27 October 2016 at 11:40, Jörg Frings-Fürst <deb...@jff-webhosting.net> wrote: > Hello, > > I have read the discussion about the openssl transition here again. > > One of the last notes was to be used openssl 1.0 and 1.1 in parallel > because of the non-trivia

openssl transition

2016-10-27 Thread Jörg Frings-Fürst
Hello, I have read the discussion about the openssl transition here again. One of the last notes was to be used openssl 1.0 and 1.1 in parallel because of the non-trivial changes. So I have some questions: - The parallel use of release 1.0 and 1.1 will not be pursued? - Why is the transition