Bug#995636: transition: openssl

[Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>]

Hi Sebastian

On 2022-05-28 16:49:07, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> On 2022-05-27 15:36:53 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 06:26:57PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > > 
> > > That leaves #1011051. What's your view on that bug?
> > 
> > So my understanding is that 1.1.1 doesn't understand the new
> > configuration file and tries to load an engine (instead of a
> > provider).
> > 
> > We could ship a file that's comptabile with 1.1.1. That would make it
> > a little bit harder to load some providers by default, but maybe that's
> > something you want to do per application anyway.
> 
> If that works, let's do that.
> 
> Otherwise I'd fear that the only other options are openssl breaking
> libssl1.1 or renaming /etc/ssl/openssl.cnf to have a version specific
> name. Given the high number reverse dependencies involved in this
> transition (and also those depending on bin:openssl), I'd prefer to
> avoid a Breaks that could have the potential to force the libssl1.1 ->
> libssl3 upgrade to be more of a lockstep transition than needed.

I see that there was another openssl upload. Any reason a fix for this
issue wasn't included in the upload of 3.0.3-6?

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher