On Tue, 2025-09-09 at 19:27 +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > Dear Florian, > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 7:11 PM Florian Weimer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That said, I am not sure they are changing all symbol versions in the > > > new .so.4 file, perhaps they should reset all symbols versions to > > > 4.0.0? > > > > Yeah, if they don't do that, it's going to be really awkward. > > > > How set are they on the soname bump? Maybe they'd be open to a review > > how to avoid it on GNU/Linux? But that could mean they'll end up with > > different sonames on GNU and musl. > > > > > I think that it's worth asking upstream [1] about it. Either feature request > or discussion would work. > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl
Keep in mind that for Fedora it would be better the soname change, without it we would not be able to have binary compatibility by retaining the soname with openssl3-compat the compact package would have to place the library in a different directory somehow or change the library name, which would require many packages to be mass-rebuilt at the same time openssl 4.0 lands, because otherwise symbols would be missing It would also require to back out the symbol versioning changes. I am not against or in favor, but given the intention to break binary compatibility with 4.0 a soname change is not a bad idea. My 2c, Simo. -- Simo Sorce Distinguished Engineer RHEL Crypto Team Red Hat, Inc -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
