Bug#827061: transition: openssl
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:52:31PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I'm sorry but I'm going to have to nack this for Stretch, as much as I like to
> approve transitions and get new stuff in. I have looked at the opened bugs and
> I'm afraid this still is too disruptive. I have noticed that you have forwarded
> some of them and sent patches, and I appreciate that. We can do this early in
> the Buster cycle, so let's look at the status of this and prepare for the
> transition when Stretch gets released.
Is having 2 version of OpenSSL in Stretch an option?
I could upload an openssl102 source package that provides an
libssl1.0.2-dev package, so that packages that aren't ready to
move to the 1.1.0 version can build-depend on that instead.