• Re: Early migration for openssh?

    From Colin Watson@21:1/5 to Cyril Brulebois on Wed May 14 02:30:02 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.maint.boot, linux.debian.devel.release

    On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 01:15:34AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
    Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> (various dates):
    openssh (1:10.0p1-5) unstable; urgency=medium
    .
    * Ensure that configure knows the path to passwd; fixes reproducibility of
    openssh-tests.

    openssh (1:10.0p1-4) unstable; urgency=medium
    .
    [ Daniel Kahn Gillmor ]
    * Add Requires=ssh-agent.socket to ssh-agent.service (closes: #1103522).

    openssh (1:10.0p1-3) unstable; urgency=medium
    .
    * Disable --with-linux-memlock-onfault again, since it causes
    RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to be exceeded with some combinations of PAM modules
    (closes: #1103418).

    We have a few fixes in unstable, one for a grave bug, another one for an >important one. Your latest update is 5/10 days old, so might qualify for >“sufficiently tested to be confident enough”.

    I hope to have D-I Trixie RC 1 lined up in the next few days, but I'd be
    fine with pushing your package into testing right away instead of having
    it wait for the full 10 days. I don't think it changes anything
    regarding the d-i runtime, but users might enjoy a freshly installed
    system with a few more bugfixes right off the bat.

    I also filed #1105179 earlier this week for an unblock for this. I
    obviously have a bias here, but IMO 1:10.0p1-5 is pretty clearly better
    than 1:10.0p1-2 and there doesn't seem to be a particular reason to
    wait.

    Thanks,

    --
    Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwatson@debian.org]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cyril Brulebois@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 14 03:10:01 2025
    XPost: linux.debian.maint.boot, linux.debian.devel.release

    Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> (2025-05-14):
    I also filed #1105179 earlier this week for an unblock for this.

    Sorry, I didn't think of the obvious, checking unblock requests…

    I obviously have a bias here, but IMO 1:10.0p1-5 is pretty clearly
    better than 1:10.0p1-2 and there doesn't seem to be a particular
    reason to wait.

    I was definitely asking your point of view as maintainer(s), I didn't
    want to risk “rushing” something that in your opinion should mature some more. I'll follow up on the unblock request in a moment.

    Thanks for the swift answer!


    Cheers,
    --
    Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
    D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmgj7GAACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSCk7Q/6AxFsM2muia46z2VthlUPL3dFtvv4O4OxyAAovuewSo4WjaFGYbFpkOSi L3qHYCMOpfWB5d6NmBusTAuz0kRLCfTpvh76PbeD2qR1vpbvUTXS5FY1CvPH+21g vTR0M3ZaAtJswLY4wGy7MgfBpy03dBNSfccF2jThFC3hC2stneb1r454RtogLT3V /Y3gHP5gy+K+UMAuXA8PIrgMe0eeUVTNn42uwFFavnr0pZyz0mLNBQ6YnSZxQiN4 ZNRtk/2kSWGWq0O4Ed8yjXjEb/EUQIp0kOiVFR5cKAkjk8N+MvLD8DScgM+dDfQV iNmeyiluwUwUzRzPYSrYj+ok2dDGunad6+JA1LLCqUxDX3vQaUlAYMuaabY+VpKX WwyNtwzRDQ8LWTaYbfvPzpZsElbNOw4VjYJu4cui2YYGCMIfKJWxvQWIfKtw2TPG QyNP8i0sR6WoL8uHTJolyD+dIgDuXDvGrpJ0viottxgAVwSAQAOi46e+srR11iR9 6fpwnjpbjj/rhlIeO67+MVH4HCztFdWDHvtF+RR4t6ZCpbj4/z9CTGdwt7QDVL5P f+Vv0/cmrpBNFCdG2sFElSTggfWRdOVLVnBdI0eZun58lhUjtTAyHHPXbPDQBefS cVGmX95xLKfj35h/hKKGct7EfCkZyNdOZXZF0AkgFY5Rg7IwJsM=
    =All5
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    *