Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Newsgroups: linux.debian.bugs.dist Subject: Bug#847612: [Pkg-nagios-devel] Bug#847612: monitoring-plugins-basic lost OpenSSL support Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:00:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: Jan Wagner X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-bugs-dist-request@lists.debian.org Tue Dec 13 20:57:09 2016 Old-Return-Path: X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.21 Reply-To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , 847612@bugs.debian.org Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-Cc: Debian Nagios Maintainer Group X-Debian-Pr-Message: followup 847612 X-Debian-Pr-Package: monitoring-plugins-basic X-Debian-Pr-Source: monitoring-plugins X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 12; hammy, 127; neutral, 37; spammy, 0. spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--H*UA:NeoMutt, 0.000-+--H*u:NeoMutt, 0.000-+--H*UA:1.7.1, 0.000-+--H*u:1.7.1, 0.000-+--GnuTLS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161126 (1.7.1) X-Debian-Message: from BTS X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1335614 List-ID: List-URL: Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 18 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: 847612@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Bunk X-Original-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 21:54:45 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: <20161213205443.cwnfinlxawocyxrv@breakpoint.cc> X-Original-References: <148131782851.5528.16474920458391285607.reportbug@localhost> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:790729 On 2016-12-11 16:25:27 [+0100], Jan Wagner wrote: > Am 09.12.16 um 22:10 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > > configure: WARNING: OpenSSL or GnuTLS libs could not be found or were disabled > > thanks for notifying. Seems that there was a change in depencies in > unstable (and testing) for some of the packages we were depending on. A > package with explicit dependency is on it's way. Could someone please enlighten me what is wrong here? The dep in -2 is libssl-dev | libssl1.0-dev which makes no sense becuase it should be either the one or the other. So the -2 build took libssl-dev and built against 1.1.0 successfully (as far as I can tell). This means that the libssl1.0-dev could be dropper because it was not used on the buildd. > Thanks, Jan. Sebastian