[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0

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 

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: