On lunes, 14 de noviembre de 2016 22:16:25 ART Jan Niehusmann wrote: [snip] > (It's fine if packages which depend on libssl-dev get an RC-bug if they > can't be compiled with OpenSSL 1.1. Packages which can't be ported > should explicitly depend on libssl1.0-dev. That way we'll make progress > towards a point where we can start a smooth transition.)
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). 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. -- You are the Doc, Doc! Marty McFly To Dr. Emmett Brown, Back to the Future III Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
