Bug#828258: canl-c/gridsite: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

2016-12-03 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2016-12-03 12:14:38 [+0100], Stefan Fritsch wrote: > On Friday, 2 December 2016 00:16:24 CET Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > is there a reason for gridsite not to go for 3.0 (or backport the > > change) and libssl-dev? Apache stays 1.0 but does not expose anything > > SSL related (unless I

Bug#828258: canl-c/gridsite: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

2016-12-03 Thread Stefan Fritsch
On Friday, 2 December 2016 00:16:24 CET Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > is there a reason for gridsite not to go for 3.0 (or backport the > change) and libssl-dev? Apache stays 1.0 but does not expose anything > SSL related (unless I read #828236 too quick). (assuming you meant 1.1 instead of 3

Bug#828258: canl-c/gridsite: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

2016-12-01 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2016-11-15 20:22:10 [+0100], Stefan Fritsch wrote: > Hi again, Hi, > On Saturday, 12 November 2016 07:51:40 CET Stefan Fritsch wrote: > > If these two packages cannot transition to openssl 1.1.0 before apache2 > > does, I suggest that you build with openssl 1.0.2 explicitly and then > > downgra

Bug#828258: canl-c/gridsite: FTBFS with openssl 1.1.0

2016-11-15 Thread Stefan Fritsch
Hi again, On Saturday, 12 November 2016 07:51:40 CET Stefan Fritsch wrote: > If these two packages cannot transition to openssl 1.1.0 before apache2 > does, I suggest that you build with openssl 1.0.2 explicitly and then > downgrade the bugs and unlink them from the transition bug. I don't have >