In data sabato 10 novembre 2018 13:30:19 CET, Kurt Roeckx ha scritto: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:29:43PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2018-10-21 12:31:45 [+0200], Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:29:28PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > On 2018-08-25 10:33:54 [+0200], Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 11:22:09AM +0000, Sandro Knauß wrote: > > > > > > Source: kopete > > > > > > Source-Version: 4:18.04.1-1 > > > > > > > > > > > > We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of > > > > > > kopete, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. > > > > > > > > > > Any plans to upload this to unstable? > > > > > > > > There are just two packages left in testing which use openssl1.0. The > > > > last kopete upload was in mid June. Is there anything blocking an upload > > > > to unstable? > > > > > > The other one just got fixed in unstable, so this will soon be the > > > only package in testing still depending on libssl1.0.2. > > > > kopete is the only package in testing still using libssl1.0.2. Could > > someone please comment on this? > > This is in experimental for more than 5 months now. > > If nobody replies to this, I will upload an NMU to unstable. NMU *what*? Because if you upload the version in experimental to unstable, then you are effectively taking its maintainership. The version in experimental is *NOT* ready for unstable/testing, otherwise I would have uploaded it long ago. I cannot work on it today, maybe tomorrow. <rant> OTOH, this kind of non-helping attitude for you openssl guys (for example not helping fixing these porting bugs, constant useless poking, breakage of openssl 1.1 in unstable) certainly does not help. If you want cooperation, then be ccoperative yourself, instead of just expecting others to follow whatever you do. </rant> -- Pino Toscano
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.