On 2022-06-08 22:13:09 [+0200], Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> That would be much appreciated, thanks!
Did so, sorry for the delay. I aimed for Monday but…
> Cheers
Sebastian
On 2022-06-05 19:50:33 +, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 5 June 2022 19:03:17 UTC, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >The suggestion was to make an openssl.cnf that's compatible with 1.1.1,
> >and so remove or comment out everything related to providers.
> >
>
> Ah okay. In that case let me so
Hi,
Is there an ETA for this?
Asking since openssl is blocking a number of rev-deps from
migrating for almost a month by now.
--
Best,
Nilesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 5 June 2022 19:03:17 UTC, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>The suggestion was to make an openssl.cnf that's compatible with 1.1.1,
>and so remove or comment out everything related to providers.
>
Ah okay. In that case let me so that tomorrow and close that rc bug with this
change.
>
>Kurt
>
--
On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 08:44:22PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-06-05 19:42:43 [+0200], Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> > > Otherwise I'd fear that the only other options are openssl breaking
> > > libssl1.1 or renaming /etc/ssl/openssl.cnf to
On 2022-06-05 19:42:43 [+0200], Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Hi Sebastian
Hi Sebastian,
> > Otherwise I'd fear that the only other options are openssl breaking
> > libssl1.1 or renaming /etc/ssl/openssl.cnf to have a version specific
> > name. Given the high number reverse dependencies involved in
Hi Sebastian
On 2022-05-28 16:49:07, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2022-05-27 15:36:53 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 06:26:57PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > >
> > > That leaves #1011051. What's your view on that bug?
> >
> > So my understanding is that 1.1.1
Hi
On 2022-05-27 15:36:53 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 06:26:57PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> >
> > That leaves #1011051. What's your view on that bug?
>
> So my understanding is that 1.1.1 doesn't understand the new
> configuration file and tries to load an engine
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 06:26:57PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>
> That leaves #1011051. What's your view on that bug?
So my understanding is that 1.1.1 doesn't understand the new
configuration file and tries to load an engine (instead of a
provider).
We could ship a file that's comptabile
On 2022-05-26 18:26:57 [+0200], Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Hi Sebastian
Hi,
> We're now at the following blockers for openssl's migration:
…
> Bugs for the autopkgtest regressions have been filed and some are
> already fixed in unstable. So I'll add hints to ignore those
> regressions.
good.
>
Hi Sebastian
On 2022-05-13 23:49:33, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-05-09 00:11:22 [+0200], Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 = confirmed
> >
> > Please go ahead
>
> Thank you, done.
We're now at the following blockers for openssl's migration:
∙ Updating openssl would
On 2022-05-15 20:33:09 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Static libraries are not linked with libraries they use,
> and usage of static-only libraries that use OpenSSL gets
> broken in a way not handled either way by the tracker.
>
> Trying to link a library that was built with OpenSSL 1.1
> together
Static libraries are not linked with libraries they use,
and usage of static-only libraries that use OpenSSL gets
broken in a way not handled either way by the tracker.
Trying to link a library that was built with OpenSSL 1.1
together with OpenSSL 3.0 into a program is not supposed
to work.
Two
On 2022-05-09 00:11:22 [+0200], Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: tags -1 = confirmed
>
> Please go ahead
Thank you, done.
> Cheers
Sebastian
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 = confirmed
Bug #995636 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl
Added tag(s) confirmed.
--
995636: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995636
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 = confirmed
On 2022-03-01 23:39:13 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
>
> Removing moreinfo tag since I provide more information in my previous
> reply.
>
> On 2022-02-28 00:23:22 [+0100], To 995...@bugs.debian.org wrote:
> > On 2022-02-14
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 - moreinfo
Bug #995636 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
--
995636: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995636
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
Removing moreinfo tag since I provide more information in my previous
reply.
On 2022-02-28 00:23:22 [+0100], To 995...@bugs.debian.org wrote:
> On 2022-02-14 15:01:34 [+0100], To Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > On 2022-02-01 21:11:11 [+0100], Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>
On 2022-02-14 15:01:34 [+0100], To Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 21:11:11 [+0100], Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > > Could you please update this transition request? It's open for four
> > > months and no visible response.
> >
> > Kurt mention some 100 packages failing to build. I only
On 2022-02-01 21:11:11 [+0100], Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Could you please update this transition request? It's open for four
> > months and no visible response.
>
> Kurt mention some 100 packages failing to build. I only see a handfull
> of bugs filed. So what's the status on those build
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On 2022-02-01 15:36:37 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Hi release team
>
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 02:59:31PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > We would like to transition to OpenSSL 3.0.0. It's currently in
> > experimental. It has an soname change, so the binary packages
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #995636 [release.debian.org] transition: openssl
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
--
995636: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995636
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Hi release team
On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 02:59:31PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> We would like to transition to OpenSSL 3.0.0. It's currently in
> experimental. It has an soname change, so the binary packages got
> renamed and binNMUs will be required.
Could you please update this transition
Paul Wise writes:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:30 AM Luca Boccassi wrote:
>> On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 21:04 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> > Additionally OpenSSL is considered system library, see
>> > https://bugs.debian.org/951780
>> > https://bugs.debian.org/972181
>>
>> Even if that
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 11:30 AM Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 21:04 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Additionally OpenSSL is considered system library, see
> > https://bugs.debian.org/951780
> > https://bugs.debian.org/972181
>
> Even if that interpretation holds, and
On Tue, 2021-10-05 at 21:04 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-10-05 20:03:49 [+0200], Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Hi Kurt, hi Luca, hi everyone,
> Hi Michael,
>
> > That said, I'm not a lawyer and reading license texts hurts my brain.
> > So my goal is is mainly to raise awareness of
On 2021-10-05 20:03:49 [+0200], Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hi Kurt, hi Luca, hi everyone,
Hi Michael,
> That said, I'm not a lawyer and reading license texts hurts my brain.
> So my goal is is mainly to raise awareness of this issue and seek input from
> the community.
GPL code which linked against
Hi Kurt, hi Luca, hi everyone,
regarding the impending transition to OpenSSL 3.0 in unstable (which is
now licensed under Apache 2.0), I wonder what that means for Debian,
given that apparently GPL-2 (and also LGPL-2) and Apache 2.0 are
incompatible with each other.
If I read Luca
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
We would like to transition to OpenSSL 3.0.0. It's currently in
experimental. It has an soname change, so the binary packages got
renamed and binNMUs will be required.
We did a
29 matches
Mail list logo
