Bug#1055751: marked as done (transition: wolfssl)
Your message dated Fri, 17 Nov 2023 07:42:57 +0100
with message-id <ZVcLccDiReX9sehg@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1055751: transition: wolfssl
has caused the Debian Bug report #1055751,
regarding transition: wolfssl
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1055751: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055751
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Control: affects -1 wolfssl
X-Debbugs-Cc: wolfssl@packages.debian.org
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Severity: normal
Control: forwarded -1 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-wolfssl.html
wolfssl is available in experimental with libwolfssl41.
This transition is from libwolfssl35.
The auto-generated Ben file is okay and all reverse dependencies build fine.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2023-11-10 22:29:22 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: tags -1 = confirmed
>
> On 2023-11-10 19:13:22 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:
> > Am 10.11.23 um 18:03 schrieb Sebastian Ramacher:
> > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> > >
> > > On 2023-11-10 15:57:27 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote:
> > > > The auto-generated Ben file is okay and all reverse dependencies build fine.
> > >
> > > What's the status of the reverse dependencies? Do they build
> > > successfully with the new version of wolfssl?
> >
> > Yes, as I have written.
>
> I should have finished with reading that sentence. Please go ahead.
The old binaries got removed from testing. Closing
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
--- End Message ---
Reply to: