Re: gnutls28 transition
On 5 May 2014 18:53, Andreas Metzler <ametzler@bebt.de> wrote:
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> wrote:
>> Le dimanche, 4 mai 2014, 02.14:17 peter green a écrit :
>>> Personally I'd add a (build-)depends on the relicensed gmp in the next
>>> gnutls28 upload. That way packages can (build-)depend on the new
>>> gnutls and be assured of getting a GPLv2 compatible version.
>
> Hello,
>
> Afaiui it would be perfectly fine to /build/ GPLv2 code against older
> GMP as long as we distribute the resulting binary only together with
> the newer GMP binary. (The binary will often be identical, no matter
> whether it is built against gmp 5.3 or 6).
>
> Also I am reluctant with manually overriding gmp shlibs. How about
> simply adding
> Breaks: libgmp10 (<< 2:6)
> to the libgnutls28 binary package?
> [...]
>
I was thinking that this would be indeed sufficient.
>> Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>>> Should we start transition to gnutls28 by default, for all packages
>>> that are compatible?
>
> Due to size of the transition it is a little bit difficult, see
> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.release/73990>
> (Please keep this thread on d-d, -release is not a discussion list.)
>
> I have done some test-builds and reported most of the issues I
> found[1]. Some important library packages have already switched (cups,
> curl), I guess the next one would be neon or gnome-vfs.
>
=/ i was hoping that it's api compatible, so we can't just blindly
take-over previous libgnutls-dev package name from gnutls28 sources
(like i've now proposed in the
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=747121 )
Are you talking about 3.2.13-2 or 3.3.1-1 from experimental or both
that things need fixing up to support?
Looking at the bugs it looks like either.
> cu Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=gnutls3;users=ametzler@debian.org
>
--
Regards,
Dimitri.
Reply to: