Bug#622134: transition: openssl 1.0.0
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 09:02:31PM +0800, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
> I'm not in a mood for this kind of "discussion". I can only reiterate
> that there is nothing I can do. Packages built after openssl 1.0.0 had
> become the standard are fine and I have no control over older binary
> packages that are already released.
> >> I can only repeat that there is nothing inherently in isdnutils to force
> >> dependency on libssl0.9.8. Grep through the source and packaging
> >> information if you don't believe me.
> > See above. Maybe you should look at the right packages and ACK that
> > Adam meant *testing*.
> There's nothing in isdnutils packaging or source in testing that would
> force a dependency on a specific version, either. Look at the
> testing-to-unstable debdiff or the testing source if you think I'm
> wrong. The only significant difference is the time the packages were
> built. If packages are stuck at older binaries built pre-openssl1.0.0
> for certain arches that is nothing I have control over, either.
> You guys keep barking up the wrong tree. Send a patch against isdnutils
> if you disagree and can prove your point.
You said in <4E8EAEB7.email@example.com>:
"All packages in testing depend on 1.0.0 of
the openssl packages. The arches where isdnutils-derived packages still
depend on 0.9.8 either have outdated isdnutils and/or openssl packages."
*packages in testing". Proven wrong.
That was all what was to prove. No one denied that sid might have
picked up 1.0.0, but testing definitely isn't (and this isdnutils
keeps openssl 0.9.8 in testing as the idnutils *there* *does* depend
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' firstname.lastname@example.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70
`- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70