Re: Bug#83419: where are libssl09 and libssl095a?
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 09:00:19PM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 11:13:33AM -0800 , Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> > Now, since the MAJOR and MINOR numbers are both used in the soname, one could
> > presume that libssl09, libssl095a, and libssl096 could all be installed
> > simultaneously. However, libssl09 and libssl095a have been obsoleted and have
>
> yes. they can. I even have all of them installed
I know they can. But they have been removed from the archives.
> > been removed from sid EVEN THOUGH there are packages that still depend on
> > them.
>
> he? it's normal. don't you know that? whena a package stops to build a .deb
> the old gets removed. With testing in place this shouldn't happen anymore
> though. So you must either upload openssl-0.9 and build libssl09 and
> openssl-0.95a and openssl-0.95 to build libssl095 and libssl095a. UGLY
My point is that EITHER the upstream's use of the soname is incorrect OR that
libssl09, libss095a, and libssl096 are distinct packages and should all be
available in the archives.
If the soname of libssl09 is libssl.so.0
and the soname of libssl095a is libssl.so.0.9.5a
and the soname of libssl096 is libssl.so.0.9.6
then they are different interfaces of the same library
and all three should be available in the archive.
Personally, I believe that upstream's use of the soname is incorrect and I
encourage the maintainer to convince them of said fact. I will try to do the
same.
Until upstream changes their soname, the question is whether we should:
a) have all three packages, or
b) modify the soname ourselves.
On IRC, Ben Collins is of the opinion that we should do b) and that we should
provide the other symlinks as necessary so that non-Debian binaries will still
work.
Luca
--
Luca Filipozzi
[dpkg] We are the apt. Resistance is futile. You will be packaged.
Reply to: