On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 02:29:16PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari skribis:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 10:35:09PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >> Seems like most of the arguments and phases are shared with ‘openssl’,
> >> right? What about using ‘substitute-keyword-arguments’
Leo Famulari skribis:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 10:35:09PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Seems like most of the arguments and phases are shared with ‘openssl’,
>> right? What about using ‘substitute-keyword-arguments’ to reduce
>> duplication? Or are you concerned about potential breakage wh
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 10:35:09PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Seems like most of the arguments and phases are shared with ‘openssl’,
> right? What about using ‘substitute-keyword-arguments’ to reduce
> duplication? Or are you concerned about potential breakage when one
> series or the other
Leo Famulari skribis:
> From 2e6f500c7876733206e231fd98ebe7419d9b076f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Leo Famulari
> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:07:29 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add openssl-next.
>
> * gnu/packages/tls.scm (openssl-next): New variable.
> * gnu/packages/patches/openssl-1.1.0-c-r
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 10:20:49PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 04:34:51PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Yes, but as long the ‘openssl’ refers to 1.0.x, it doesn’t really matter
> > than the “openssl” package points to the latest one, no? Use can still
> > run “guix pac
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 04:34:51PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Yes, but as long the ‘openssl’ refers to 1.0.x, it doesn’t really matter
> than the “openssl” package points to the latest one, no? Use can still
> run “guix package -i openssl@1.0” if they want.
Oh, right :)
I've attached a patc
Leo Famulari skribis:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 03:50:55PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Leo Famulari skribis:
>> > When I put "openssl" in the 'name' field, as attached, `guix build
>> > openssl` gives me 1.1.0, which is not right. The other *-next packages
>> > all seem to use "name-next" a
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 03:50:55PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari skribis:
> > When I put "openssl" in the 'name' field, as attached, `guix build
> > openssl` gives me 1.1.0, which is not right. The other *-next packages
> > all seem to use "name-next" as the name.
>
> Yes, but it’s
Leo Famulari skribis:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 02:43:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> > I also read about lots of breakage due to the update so I think it’s
>> > okay to add it as “openssl-next” for now.
>>
>> Agreed (though its fine to use “openssl” in the ‘name’ field IMO.)
>
> When I pu
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:14:22PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> +(define-public openssl-next
> + (package
> +(inherit openssl)
Also, I wonder if this should inherit from openssl?
Presumably there will be more security updates to openssl@1.0.2 before
openssl@1.1.0 is ready for general use, an
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 02:43:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > I also read about lots of breakage due to the update so I think it’s
> > okay to add it as “openssl-next” for now.
>
> Agreed (though its fine to use “openssl” in the ‘name’ field IMO.)
When I put "openssl" in the 'name' field,
Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> Leo Famulari writes:
>
>> This patch updates to OpenSSL to 1.1.0.
>>
>> I don't think we should update now; basically nothing works yet with the
>> new interface.
>>
>> But, I could adapt the patch to add this version as openssl-next.
>>
>> Your thoughts?
>
> I also rea
Leo Famulari writes:
> This patch updates to OpenSSL to 1.1.0.
>
> I don't think we should update now; basically nothing works yet with the
> new interface.
>
> But, I could adapt the patch to add this version as openssl-next.
>
> Your thoughts?
I also read about lots of breakage due to the upd
13 matches
Mail list logo
