[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Potato ssl and apache

As Ivan asked for some input regarding the new packages that had been
included from woody.

First of all I would like to express my thanks to Ivan for the work he
is doing as debian life would not be as easy for us who enjoy KDE2.

Secondly the machine which I am trying this out on at the moment is by
no means a clean Potato machine as it is running XF4 and 2.4 and
obviously some other tools from Woody. Futher it has a lot of
unneccesary packages running as this is a test machine I use since I'm
giving some Linux classes.

However, bringing major packages as parts of apache and ssl from Woody
down to Potato is by no means an unproblematic issue and at the moment I
am getting conflicts with the following packages:
 sslwrap (depends on libssl09 which conflicts with libssl096)
 libapache-mod-ruby (due to apache-common)
 libapache-mod-auth-pam (dito)
 libapache-mod-perl (dito)
 php3 (dito)

I.e. there are a number of packages depending on the versions in stock
Potato. Obviously all can be solved quite easily by either holding back
packages or getting newer from Woody.

But my concern with is is now that if there were to arrive e.g. a
security update to apache or any other packages on hold it would be no
longer a simple daily apt upgrade to get the machine up to date and one
really need to follow the alerts and remember what one has on hold.

These are by no means showstoppers as one should anyway follow the
alerts, but just an opinion that it might be wiser to try to stay as
close to Potato as possible and maybe leave out functionality out of KDE
that would require updates to core Potato packages.

While in opinion mode, I'd like to express another opinion on an issue
that was discussed a while back that the dependancies on alsa had been
voted down. I am one who would vote the other way around and would be
happy to see a dependancy on alsa as I am using ALSA (from cvs) for the
sequencer support for my SB Live.

F:ma M Lassus

Reply to: