Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
>
>
>>Note the following apparent facts:
>>* libssl0.9.7 and libssl0.9.8, if linked in the same binary, will cause
>>unpredictable failure due to symbol conflicts.
>>* This could be fixed if libssl0.9.8 had versioned symbols, which it doesn't
>>yet.
>
* Nathanael Nerode:
> Note the following apparent facts:
> * libssl0.9.7 and libssl0.9.8, if linked in the same binary, will cause
> unpredictable failure due to symbol conflicts.
> * This could be fixed if libssl0.9.8 had versioned symbols, which it doesn't
> yet.
Are you sure? I think it's n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please note that libssl0.9.7 and libssl0.9.8 have a different
> SONAME. There can only be a problem when a program (indirectly)
> links to both of them. In that case, there isn't even an option
> not to install both of them.
>
> If a program is linked to both of them,
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:39:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > Packages built against the unversioned libssl0.9.8 will, when run on a
> system
> > > with versioned libssl0.9.8, either pick up the symbols from libssl0.9.7
> > > (wrong) or not find their symbols (segfault). Accordingly,
> > Packages built against the unversioned libssl0.9.8 will, when run on a
system
> > with versioned libssl0.9.8, either pick up the symbols from libssl0.9.7
> > (wrong) or not find their symbols (segfault). Accordingly, all packages
> > linked against the current libssl0.9.8 are in trouble an
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 01:11:17PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> What I'm wondering about was the need for a Conflict between
> libssl0.9.7 and libssl0.9.8. I think we should do it, but it's
> going to make migration to testing alot harder, but hopefully the
> last time.
Having talked to with th
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:38:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 12:52:08AM +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
> > > Finally, are there any plans to alleviate testing migration issues for
> > > packages held up by this, and if so, how?
>
> The way to alleviate testing migrati
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051015 01:39]:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 12:52:08AM +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
> > > Finally, are there any plans to alleviate testing migration issues for
> > > packages held up by this, and if so, how?
>
> The way to alleviate testing migration issues i
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 12:52:08AM +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
> > Finally, are there any plans to alleviate testing migration issues for
> > packages held up by this, and if so, how?
The way to alleviate testing migration issues is by getting openssl097 and
openssl updates into testing ASAP.
Hi Nathanael,
Nathanael Nerode schrieb:
> Note the following apparent facts:
> * libssl0.9.7 and libssl0.9.8, if linked in the same binary, will cause
> unpredictable failure due to symbol conflicts.
> * This could be fixed if libssl0.9.8 had versioned symbols, which it doesn't
> yet.
> * I see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I intend to drop the libssl0.9.7-dev package in the next upload,
>>>which I hope to do soon. I don't think it's a good idea to keep
>>>that -dev package around. Un
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I intend to drop the libssl0.9.7-dev package in the next upload,
> > which I hope to do soon. I don't think it's a good idea to keep
> > that -dev package around. Unless the release team ask me to keep
> > it around, I'll remove it.
>
> I would
12 matches
Mail list logo
