Bug#1020413: nmu: bind-dyndb-ldap_11.6-3
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 06:13:29PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> > On 21. 9. 2022, at 20:35, Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Control: tags -1 + bullseye
> >
> > On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 13:47 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> >> nmu bind-dyndb-ldap_11.6-3 . ANY . bullseye . -m "rebuild for
> >> bind9_9.16.33-1~deb11u1"
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> after the bind9_9.16.33-1~deb11u1 is release to bullseye-security,
> >> the
> >> bind-dyndb-ldap plugin will require binNMU.
> >>
> >
> > We can do that - once the packages are in p-u, because p-u chroots
> > don't pull in packages from the security archive - but it will mean
> > that users won't get the binNMUs until the next point release, which
> > probably isn't until November now.
> >
> > Is that OK?
>
>
> Adding Paul, Salvatore and Timo into the bunch.
>
> I honestly don't know because I don't use this package, but I think
> it might prevent the users using the bind-dyndb-ldap users from
> upgrading the bind9 package.
>
> Should I then prepare a NMU for bullseye-security?
>
> Looks like only viable solution long-term would be to build all the
> bind plugins from the src:bind9 package, but it's too late for bullseye.
Why is this binNMU actually needed? bind9-dyndb-ldap has the
following:
Depends: bind9-libs (>= 1:9.16.15), libc6 (>= 2.14), libkrb5-3 (>= 1.6.dfsg.2), libldap-2.4-2 (>= 2.4.7), libuuid1 (>= 2.16), bind9 (>= 9.11)
which is satisifed as well after the bind9 update via
bullseye-security, and updates are possible. Do your request imply
that the relationship would be too lax?
Regards,
Salvatore
Reply to: