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

Bug#827061: transition: openssl

Hi Kurt,

On 12/10/16 22:47, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 09:33:43PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 09:42:59PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 09:31:17PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/16 20:59, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>>>>> OpenSSL will soon release a new upstream version with a new
>>>>> soname.  This new version will break various packages, see:
>>>>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/06/msg00205.html
>>>>> I'm currently not sure when the release will be ready.  I would
>>>>> like to start this transition as soon as possible, but probably
>>>>> after it's actually released.  I don't expect this to take long.
>>>> 405 packages failed to build during your test rebuild AFAICS. That's going to
>>>> take some time to sort out...
>>>>> If I'm ready to upload it to unstable, can I start this
>>>>> transition?  Are there things you want me to do?
>>>> Please upload to experimental first and let us know when that's happened.
>>> It's in experimental already.  The test suite only fails
>>> on hurd, for some reason it's not finding the engine.  I still
>>> need to look at that.
>>>> We will also need bugs filed, with severity important for now.
>>> Sure, I'll start on that if I find the time.
>>>> Also it may be useful if you can get us the intersection between the packages
>>>> that failed to build and the key packages[1] (see "Final list of 3302 key source
>>>> packages" in that file).
>>> That actually seem to be 3247 source package.  Anyway, the list is
>>> below.
>> So OpenSSL 1.1.0 was released about 3 weeks ago.  Since then we've
>> been working on the key packages, to get them to build with
>> OpenSSL 1.1.0.  You can see that status of that at:
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=openssl-1.1-trans-keypkg;users=pkg-openssl-devel-request@lists.alioth.debian.org
>> Most of the packages are really trivial to fix, but some do
>> require that you fix the same issues in many different places and
>> it can take some time to fix it.
>> I would like to motivate more people to work on this by either
>> marking those bugs as RC, or uploading it to unstable.
> Ping.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to nack this for Stretch, as much as I like to
approve transitions and get new stuff in. I have looked at the opened bugs and
I'm afraid this still is too disruptive. I have noticed that you have forwarded
some of them and sent patches, and I appreciate that. We can do this early in
the Buster cycle, so let's look at the status of this and prepare for the
transition when Stretch gets released.


Reply to: