Re: Bug#83419: where are libssl09 and libssl095a?

[lfilipoz@emyr.net (Luca Filipozzi)]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 12:22:10PM -0800, Luca Filipozzi wrote:
> 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.

I have confirmed that 095a and 096 are binary incompatible. upstream's use
of the MAJOR and MINOR numbers is odd, but at least the soname did change,
reflecting the incompatible interface.

> 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.

We can't do b) because they are binary incompatible. Ben admonished me to
ensure that they were binary compible before he suggested b), and they are not.

So the solution is a). But we run into a problem... libssl095a and libssl096
both come from source packages named openssl and there can only be one source
package in a distribution. So, once openssl for 096 was uploaded, 095a could
no longer be built.

There are two solutions: forget about the problem or ask the maintainer to
upload a different source package so that 095a (and 09) can be built.

After some discussion on IRC, the consensus seems to be that we should forget
about the issue and expect the packages depending on libssl09 and libssl095a to
be recompiled by their maintainers. This is the easy way out but it isn't the
Right Thing To Do, imo. Nevertheless, given that only ~40 packages are in this
problematic state, I'm willing to go with the easy way out.

Therefore, I'm closing this bug so that the maintainer doesn't have to.

Luca

For the BTS: The maintainer and others are encouraged to view the thread on the
             debian-devel mailing list.

-- 
Luca Filipozzi
[dpkg] We are the apt. Resistance is futile. You will be packaged.