On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:15:43 -0600 >> From: Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> >> >> I'm wondering out loud if these versions should follow the openbsd shlib >> major minor numbers. That is where we are careful about semantic >> versioning for api change/add/remove > > No. Shared library versions are tracking the ABI. What's wanted here > is something that tracks API, including bug fixes and such. > > People really expect something like a package version here such that > they can add a check into their autoconf script that the installed > version of a package is new enough to provide the functionality their > software needs. Doing something clever here is not going to help > people. If a configure script fails telling me to get libcrypto > version 34.2, how do I determine what version of LibreSSL I need to > install? > > One possible reason to deviate from using the LibreSSL release version > would be if we want to continue to be a drop-in replacement for > OpenSSL. In that case continuing to adevrtise a reasonable OpenSSL > version number for openssl.pc, libcrypto.pc and libssl.pc might make > sense. Probably best to involve ports people in that decision though.
I have updated the .pc files to report @VERSION@ for LibreSSL-portable now (which is reported as 2.3.0, not 2:3:0). Note that openssl.pc always reported @VERSION@ anyway, so it is not a big deviation for the library .pc files to do the same. Thanks - Brent
