OpenSSL 1.0 - take 3

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OpenSSL 1.0 - take 3

Jan de Groot
Since moving on to OpenSSL 1.1 and introducing a compatibility package
openssl-1.0 (which isn't compatible), we still have FS#53836 [1] open.

 

I want to propose another openssl-1.0 rebuild that restores binary
compatibility with non-free software and Debian Jessie (jessie-backports) by
packaging OpenSSL 1.0.2 with 1.0.0 soname and 1.0.0 versioned symbols.

At this moment I don't care about an openssl-1.0.2 package that ships
libssl.so.1.0.2 like Debian does in unstable/testing at the moment, when
non-free software catches up with that we can introduce such a package
later.

 

Any objections? If not, let's make a new rebuild list and fix this.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenSSL 1.0 - take 3

Bartłomiej Piotrowski-3
On 2017-05-16 16:21, [hidden email] wrote:

> Since moving on to OpenSSL 1.1 and introducing a compatibility package
> openssl-1.0 (which isn't compatible), we still have FS#53836 [1] open.
>
>  
>
> I want to propose another openssl-1.0 rebuild that restores binary
> compatibility with non-free software and Debian Jessie (jessie-backports) by
> packaging OpenSSL 1.0.2 with 1.0.0 soname and 1.0.0 versioned symbols.
>
> At this moment I don't care about an openssl-1.0.2 package that ships
> libssl.so.1.0.2 like Debian does in unstable/testing at the moment, when
> non-free software catches up with that we can introduce such a package
> later.
>
>  
>
> Any objections? If not, let's make a new rebuild list and fix this.
>

Absolutely no objections from me, I'm more than happy to rebuild some.

Bartłomiej