Re: problem with version numbering in packages openssl and libssl1.0.0?

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: problem with version numbering in packages openssl and libssl1.0.0?
Date	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 13:10:01 +0200
Message-ID	<s5ivD-R3-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<s5gNc-8dR-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-user-request@lists.debian.org Fri Aug 12 11:07:12 2016
Old-Return-Path	<gldu-debian-user-2@m.gmane.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-5.283 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MURPHY_DRUGS_REL8=0.02, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
X-Policyd-Weight	using cached result; rate:hard: -6.1
X-Injected-Via-Gmane	http://gmane.org/
Lines	54
User-Agent	slrn/1.0.2 (Linux)
X-Mailing-List	<debian-user@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/710541
List-ID	<debian-user.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/slrnnqr8uv.f2g.liam.p.otoole@dipsy.tubbynet
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:24:31 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID	<slrnnqr8uv.f2g.liam.p.otoole@dipsy.tubbynet>
X-Original-References	<20160812090431.GD27846@server2.zift.no>
X-Original-X-Complaints-To	usenet@blaine.gmane.org
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.user:171022

Show key headers only | View raw

On 2016-08-12, Daniel <daniel@zift.no> wrote:
> Is there a problem with the version numbering for the packages
> "openssl" and "libssl1.0.0"? It seems I get the version from
> jessie/main and that the version from jessie/updates/main is
> ignored because of the extra letter in the version number.
> Isn't 1.0.1k-3+deb8u5 the prefered version here? If so, then
> I suspect lots of Debian stable users are stuck on a version
> without the latest security patches, which I would consider
> very bad.
>
> Or is it just me being confused or have missed something?
>
> - Daniel
>
> ---Paste
>
> root:~# apt-get dist-upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree       
> Reading state information... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Done
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> root:~#
> root:~# apt-cache policy libssl1.0.0
> libssl1.0.0:
>   Installed: 1.0.1t-1+deb8u2
>   Candidate: 1.0.1t-1+deb8u2
>   Version table:
>  *** 1.0.1t-1+deb8u2 0
>         500 http://ftp.no.debian.org/debian/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>      1.0.1k-3+deb8u5 0
>         500 http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates/main amd64 Packages
> root:~#
> root:~# apt-cache policy openssl
> openssl:
>   Installed: 1.0.1t-1+deb8u2
>   Candidate: 1.0.1t-1+deb8u2
>   Version table:
>  *** 1.0.1t-1+deb8u2 0
>         500 http://ftp.no.debian.org/debian/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>      1.0.1k-3+deb8u5 0
>         500 http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates/main amd64 Packages
> root:~#
>
> ---Paste ends

Note the letters 't' and 'k' in the version strings. Alpha-numeric
sorting makes 1.0.1t-1+deb8u2 the preferred version.

-- 

Liam

Thread

problem with version numbering in packages openssl and libssl1.0.0? Daniel <daniel@zift.no> - 2016-08-12 11:20 +0200
  Re: problem with version numbering in packages openssl and  libssl1.0.0? Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 13:10 +0200
    Re: problem with version numbering in packages openssl and  libssl1.0.0? Daniel <daniel@zift.no> - 2016-08-12 15:20 +0200
      Re: problem with version numbering in packages openssl and  libssl1.0.0? Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 15:40 +0200
  Re: problem with version numbering in packages openssl and  libssl1.0.0? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-12 15:30 +0200

csiph-web