* Julien Cristau (jcris...@debian.org) wrote: > On 05/29/2017 03:15 AM, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Julien Cristau (jcris...@debian.org) wrote: > >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 03:42:57 +0000, Eric Dorland wrote: > >> > >>> tag 846548 pending > >>> thanks > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Bug #846548 reported by you has been fixed in the Git repository. You can > >>> see the changelog below, and you can check the diff of the fix at: > >>> > >>> > >>> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-opensc/libp11.git/commit/?id=e8d6da0 > >>> > >> So, erm. This seems like it would break using libengine-pkcs11-openssl > >> in an application using libssl1.0.2. As a SONAME bump it also seems > >> rather inappropriate during the freeze. > > > > That's a good point. I was trying to provide an alternative to the > > broken NMU that was going to be uploaded, but yes this will break > > applications built against libssl1.0.2. It does fix using this with > > the openssl tool however. > > > Right. > > >> I'm very interested in having this fixed in stretch so I can get the > >> secure-boot stuff working on ftp-master, but this doesn't look like the > >> way to go. Not to mention that you'd have to justify the bump from > >> 0.4.3 to 0.4.4. > >> > >> Can you explain your plans here? > > > > As you suggested in your followup, the way forward would appear to be > > to upload a new libp11 source package that builds against > > libssl1.0.2. I can also backport all of the changes to 0.4.3 and > > upload to testing-proposed-updates. Does that sound reasonable? > > > Having read through the 0.4.4 changes I think I'd be ok with getting > that in if you're confident. I guess the other question is should > libp11-dev come from the openssl1.1-using package or the > openssl1.0.2-using one. At this late stage I guess it's safer to stay > with 1.0.2, and have the libp11-openssl1.1 package (or however it's > called) only provide a libengine-pkcs11-openssl1.1 binary?
OK, I like this plan. We should get the naming right going forward though for the libengine-pkcs11-openssl1.1 package. Is that how other packages are handling naming when they depend on a particular version of openssl? I should be able to get fixed uploads to unstable in a couple of days. -- Eric Dorland <e...@kuroneko.ca> 43CF 1228 F726 FD5B 474C E962 C256 FBD5 0022 1E93
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
