On 22/02/17 00:28, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-01-28 19:37:09 [+0100], Julien Cristau wrote: >> At this point, it seems clear to me that we're getting nowhere fast. >> With the freeze looming in a few days, this is growing to be a very big >> risk for the stretch release. > > Where do we stand on the openssl transition from the perspective of > people who think it is not done yet? > > The transition tracker for 1.0 shows three packages red. They depend on > "libssl-dev | libssl1.0-dev" and it builds against 1.1. Do want them to > decide properly?
I think that's alright. > The transition tracker for 1.1 shows 11 packages. Except for pyrit all > are out of testing and have more than just one RC bug which is not > relevant to the transition. And pyrit just didn't make it on i386. Hopefully it gets fixed, but otherwise it's not a key package so it will eventually get dropped from testing. > There are 78 packages in the unkown state. The first few I looked could > actually have their libssl-dev dependency dropped. khtml is the first > one which looked wrong. I will open a bug about that later. I didn't get > any further yet. Thanks. Investigating the rest would be good. I guess most of those are just for build-depends, but if there are any with bad depends (e.g. some -dev package unnecessarily depending on libssl*-dev) it'd be good to fix that for stretch, because of the conflicting libssl dev packages. Sounds like things are under control now. The concern of -dev packages not being co-installable is a valid one, but I guess we'll have to live with that. Thanks, Emilio
