Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1044380

Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1

From	"Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.maint.boot, linux.debian.devel.release
Subject	Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1
Date	2021-01-25 19:00 +0100
Message-ID	<BBe9X-3vp-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <BzOrf-ty-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <BA7DA-3a4-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <BBe9X-3vp-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <A25Gp-537-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <BBe9X-3vp-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 12:25 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-01-22 16:38:28 [+0000], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Both would be good, please.
> 
> Here is the complete diff against the last openssl release in Buster.

Thanks.

I realise that this has been dragging on for quite some time now, and
apologies again for my part in that. My (possibly overly paranoid)
concern right now is that if we aim for including 1.1.1i in 10.8,
there's less than a week of the upload window remaining for any testing
to happen and issues to be flagged up.

While I can't see any reason that packages in general should end up
with dependencies on 1.1.1i specifically, the debian-installer rebuild
for the point release will end up pulling in whichever version of
OpenSSL is in p-u at the time. That implies that we can't simply not
include the update if it's in p-u and blocking issues show up.

KiBi - I'm assuming that it would be much easier for you to check d-i
against the new OpenSSL version if it were already in p-u?

Regards,

Adam

Thread

Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> - 2021-01-09 00:20 +0100
  Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> - 2021-01-14 18:50 +0100
    Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> - 2021-01-14 19:10 +0100
      Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2021-01-14 21:20 +0100
        Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> - 2021-01-16 19:20 +0100
          Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2021-01-21 21:10 +0100
            Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> - 2021-01-22 17:50 +0100
              Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2021-01-24 12:30 +0100
              Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2021-01-24 13:10 +0100
              Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> - 2021-01-25 19:00 +0100
                Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2021-01-25 20:10 +0100
                Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2021-01-25 21:10 +0100
      Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> - 2021-01-28 00:40 +0100
        Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2021-01-29 20:40 +0100
          Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2021-02-02 00:00 +0100
            Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2021-02-10 22:00 +0100

csiph-web