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. Kurt
