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
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
> supported any more, regardless
> 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, but
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 upstr
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
ge that such a
patch 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
> - 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 in,
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
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
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
&
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. (I was a bit surp
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
Hello,
On 27 October 2016 at 11:40, Jörg Frings-Fürst
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-trivial changes.
>
> So I have s
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
