Re: Bug#127236: Compiling freeswan
Lars Bahner wrote:
> I suggest therefore that inserting 1.95 into woody is likely to create a
> better woody.
This is the reason why I did a quick 1.95 release (without integrating
all of the automatic-x509-certificate-generation features I wanted) and
why I do not intend to replace that version before it has entered
testing....
> I had a problem compiling freeswan. Then it turned out that freeswan is
> incompatible with the ACLs in GRSecurity, which - luckily - i wasn't
> using anyway. Is that then considered a bug in freeswan?
Hmm, I'm not sure. As I am currently not using GRsecurity, I can not
confirm this.
> to add up:
> * is it correct to release a deprecated version of a piece of software
> as a consequence of the freeze?
I would say that it is not, but I am not in the position to decide it.
To FTP-Masters: Please take 1.95 into woody since 1.94 has a grave bug
(according to the upstream maintainers).
> * Can we use 1.95 as the standard woody version of freeswan
I would appreciate it.
> * Is it known what caused this bug?
Unfortunately I did not have time to dig that up in the upstream
freeswan mailing lists, and the reason for deprecating 1.94 was not
mentioned on the webpage.
best regards,
Rene
Reply to: