Sebastian Andrzej Siewior:
> On 2017-01-24 06:34:00 [+0000], Niels Thykier wrote:
>> The guard, you proposed, is using 1.0.2, so this patch will be
>> unnecessary (guess I misunderstood your original intention).  But the
>> end result should be the same. :)
> 
> [...]
> The point is to ensure that nobody tries to use that header file and
> link against net-snmp whith an incompatible libssl.
> 

Indeed. I have decided to go with 1.0.2 to minimize the changes. :)

> [...]
> 
> I am not sure what we should about the package that will now fail to
> build due to missing libssl-dev. Two of them (as it looks) could be
> fixed if we tell libesmtp not to export the ssl flags.
> 
> Sebastian
> 

 * collected upstream *explicitly* adds a -lssl -lcrypto in an
   Makefile.am, so the package should B-D on it as necessary (or
   patch those -l statements out if they are unnecessary).

 * cacti-spine => Paul said he would fix that, so I assuming he got this

 * hplip => source suggests that there should be some from of
   build-dependency[1]

 * pacemaker => Ideally, libesmtp-dev would either depend on libssl-dev
   (or not include -lcrypto -lssl in its libesmtp-config script)

I will file bugs for the above (cacti-spine being a possible exception)
tomorrow - feel free to beat me to it. :)

Thanks,
~Niels

[1]
https://sources.debian.net/src/hplip/3.16.11%2Brepack0-1/installer/core_install.py/?hl=370#L370

Reply via email to