On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 02:02:52PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > On miércoles, 2 de noviembre de 2016 10:00:43 A. M. ART Bernhard Schmidt > wrote: > > Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > There might also be packages for which the changes are more > > > involved and that can't be fixed in time for the release. If you > > > want to stay with OpenSSL 1.0.2 you need to change your Build-Depends > > > from libssl-dev to libssl1.0-dev. > > > > Almost expected, this fails where another build-dep pulls in libssl-dev, > > i.e. adjusting build-dep for src:asterisk > > Today we the Qt/KDE team were hit but this same thing in the middle of our > transition: libpq-dev pulls in libssl-dev which makes Qt5 FTBFS. > > *Not impliying bad faith here:* moreoever when we started the transition we > depended upon libssl-dev so I don't know why the ssl transition got started. > Possibly a human mistake, which is fair. > > It would have been much more simple if libssl1.1-dev was provided and libssl- > dev be kept as it was. > > Can this be considered?
I don't think having libssl1-1-dev vs libssl1.0-dev is going to make much differences in the end. The build conflicts will always have to be sorted out. Kurt