On martes, 15 de noviembre de 2016 14:52:15 ART Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 2016-11-15 14:43, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > > I *really* disagree with that. Swtiching libssl-dev to provide > > libssl1.1-dev > > means that some apps/libs will get automatically recompiled and some of > > them > > might even not FTBFS (because for example, they are ready to use 1.1). > > If a 1.1.0 ready package ftbfs when libssl-dev points to 1.0 it is a bug > that > should be fixed anyway. There is no real reason not to support both > versions. A bug which, IMO, should not be RC right now, but switching libssl-dev to provide libssl1.1 *now* will probably hide crashes in the case I described above. So yes, I agree with you, I just don't agree this is the right time. Doing it as soon as the buster release cycle starts it's just fine. > > That means we left the door open to crashes due to mixed libssl > > versions. > > > > By letting libssl-dev provide libssl1.0 we do not open this door, and > > we let > > maintainers decide on a per-basis case. > > And we have to maintain two openssl versions trough the release cycle. For stretch we will already have, except we delay the release by ~1 year. Which again, if it's deemed necessary, then we should consider it. -- Una vez que hemos eliminado lo imposible, lo que queda, por improbable que parezca, es la verdad. Sherlock Holmes Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.