The latest version is 0.10.9 released on 2019-05-05. Unfortunately the author strangely changed the versioning scheme. After 0.99e it was 0.10 :-/ If you simply add ucspi-ssl-0.10.9.ebuild, portage will think it is older than ucspi-ssl-0.99. A suggestion how to solve this. 1. There is one reverse dependency that specifies version it depends on: mail-mta/netqmail depends on >=sys-apps/ucspi-ssl-0.70-r1. All versions of ucspi-ssl in the tree are newer than 0.70-r1 for a long time. Make it depend without specifying version. 2. Rename the old ebuilds prepending "0." to it: 0.{94-r1,97,98b,99,99e} => 0.0.{94-r1,97,98b,99,99e}. Don't forget to change SRC_URIs. (BTW, maybe some old ebuilds could be dropped?) 3. Add ucspi-ssl-0.10.9 and mask >=sys-apps/ucspi-ssl-0.90 in package.mask for several months. Add a comment there to explain the situation, so that nobody will prematurely remove the entry which would match no ebuilds present in the tree.
Created attachment 592110 [details] ucspi-ssl-0.94-r1:20191007-171933.log build log
Created attachment 592112 [details] emerge --info emerge --info
Comment on attachment 592110 [details] ucspi-ssl-0.94-r1:20191007-171933.log wrong bug, sorry
Comment on attachment 592112 [details] emerge --info wrong bug, sorry
(In reply to Stefan Strogin from comment #0) > The latest version is 0.10.9 released on 2019-05-05. It's 0.10.11 now. Author says it works with OpenSSL-1.1.1. > A suggestion how to solve this. > > 1. There is one reverse dependency that specifies version it depends on: > mail-mta/netqmail depends on >=sys-apps/ucspi-ssl-0.70-r1. All versions of > ucspi-ssl in the tree are newer than 0.70-r1 for a long time. Make it depend > without specifying version. There are two such dependencies - another one is mail-mta/qmail-ldap. I'm just a proxy maint, I can't update neither netqmail nor qmail-ldap, they are not packages I maintain. > 2. Rename the old ebuilds prepending "0." to it: > 0.{94-r1,97,98b,99,99e} => 0.0.{94-r1,97,98b,99,99e}. Don't forget to change > SRC_URIs. > (BTW, maybe some old ebuilds could be dropped?) I can do that. > 3. Add ucspi-ssl-0.10.9 and mask >=sys-apps/ucspi-ssl-0.90 in package.mask > for several months. Add a comment there to explain the situation, so that > nobody will prematurely remove the entry which would match no ebuilds > present in the tree. I think I can't update package.mask for same reasons - I'm just a proxy maint. Probably you should open another bugs asking to update netqmail and qmail-ldap first? In the meantime I'll try to add new ebuilds but I can't remove old ones until new ones will be stabilized.
(In reply to Stefan Strogin from comment #0) > 3. Add ucspi-ssl-0.10.9 Well, it turns out it won't that simple. This version require author's own library fehQlibs https://www.fehcom.de/ipnet/qlibs.html, and, once again, as a proxy maint I doubt I'm able to add new packages to portage.
Hi Alex, > I'm just a proxy maint, I can't update neither netqmail nor qmail-ldap, they are not packages I maintain. > I think I can't update package.mask for same reasons - I'm just a proxy maint. > I doubt I'm able to add new packages to portage. Of course you can do it if you wish. You don't have to be a package maintainter to propose such changes. The easiest way would be creating pull requests on github. I or another developer would review and push them. If you will make these PRs, it would be nice to use a "Bug:" tag with a link to this bug.
(In reply to Stefan Strogin from comment #7) > Of course you can do it if you wish. You don't have to be a package > maintainter to propose such changes. The easiest way would be creating pull > requests on github. I or another developer would review and push them. > If you will make these PRs, it would be nice to use a "Bug:" tag with a link > to this bug. Done. 4 PR opened and linked to this bug. I think we should delay updating package.mask until 0.0.99e will be merged and stabilized. I think we can try to speedup stabilization process because 0.99e is already in use for several months, and while technically 0.0.99e is new version it's the same as 0.99e, so we can ask stable team to stabilize it right now..?
Over at github, upstream linked to the following 0.11.0 version from a fork, apparently? http://www.fehcom.de/ipnet/ucspi-ssl/doxygen/index.html
(In reply to Andreas Sturmlechner from comment #9) > Over at github, upstream linked to the following 0.11.0 version from a fork, > apparently? > > http://www.fehcom.de/ipnet/ucspi-ssl/doxygen/index.html I don't get what you mean about a fork. I had discussion with the author few days ago, he said 0.11.0 may be released this weekend, but for now current is still 0.10.11 as listed at http://www.fehcom.de/ipnet/ucspi-ssl.html. AFAIK 0.11.0 will contain few fixes requested by me related to build process, not sure is there will be other changes.
Looks like this has been removed from the tree. https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=4eaa6b9b08066ca6cd009ab05572fd183f0a9d19
^ Wait, this has nothing to do with qmail-ldap right? It was linked in an obsolete Github PR...
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=af68b801bf85d4abfc0ac4ba591844c081d68686 commit af68b801bf85d4abfc0ac4ba591844c081d68686 Author: Jakov Smolić <jsmolic@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2022-12-31 18:19:56 +0000 Commit: Jakov Smolić <jsmolic@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2022-12-31 18:31:01 +0000 sys-apps/ucspi-ssl: treeclean Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/696936 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/725786 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/686430 Signed-off-by: Jakov Smolić <jsmolic@gentoo.org> profiles/base/package.use.mask | 5 -- profiles/package.mask | 5 -- sys-apps/ucspi-ssl/Manifest | 1 - .../files/ucspi-ssl-0.99e-fno-common.patch | 56 -------------------- sys-apps/ucspi-ssl/metadata.xml | 16 ------ sys-apps/ucspi-ssl/ucspi-ssl-0.99e-r2.ebuild | 61 ---------------------- 6 files changed, 144 deletions(-)
