Re: Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1
- To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: "Adam D. Barratt" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#959469: buster-pu: package openssl/1.1.1g-1
- From: Kurt Roeckx <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 23:59:28 +0100
- Message-id: <X/jj0BnEWXFhrAHP@roeckx.be>
- In-reply-to: <20210108223913.ytckd5bfegyokpzu@flow>
- References: <20200502163642.v4nhomgfa3oen7qp@flow> <20200502202902.uocqkn5b4fhsi6ti@flow> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20200502163642.v4nhomgfa3oen7qp@flow> <20201115102907.65iqtifyznccckhv@flow> <email@example.com> <20200502163642.v4nhomgfa3oen7qp@flow> <20201120200428.2adriv75jdllokqp@flow> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20210108223913.ytckd5bfegyokpzu@flow>
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:39:13PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-11-24 20:18:15 [+0000], Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > At some point, could we please have a combined / single diff between
> > the current 1.1.1d-0+deb10u3 and the proposed 1.1.1h-0+deb10u1 (I
> > assume)?
> Please find attached the diff between 1.1.1d-0+deb10u4 and the proposed
> The i release in unstable managed to migrate to testing. It was blocked
> due to ci by m2crypto and swi-prolog. The swi-prolog issue got fixed in
> unstable (the testuite was updated) and is not an issue in stable (the
> package builds, the testsuite gets ignored).
> The m2crypto issue is a different story and is still open in BTS
> (#977655). I *think* someone added an override or the ci-system was kind
> to Kurt/me and looked the other way :)
> The m2crypto package in stable and bpo will FTBFS with the updated
> openssl package.
> I'm not aware of other issues.
I think there are at least 2 upstream issues since the 1.1.1i
release we want to fix first. As far as I know, they haven't been
fixed upstream yet.