On St, 2016-10-12 at 01:23 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 16:29 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> >
> >
> > We will work on porting the dependent packages to the new API. If
> > by
> > some reasonable deadline there are still some packages that are not
> > dead by other reasons and we are unable to port them we can add
> > -devel
> > to the compat package. Note though that small changes in such
> > packages
> > will be needed anyway as the include files of the compat package
> > will
> > have to be in non-default include directory. (If the package
> > doesn't
> > use pkgconfig to find the needed CFLAGS automatically.)
> Even if it uses pkgconfig, it's still going to need to look for
> openssl102.pc or whatever we call it, because just 'openssl' is going
> to get it OpenSSL 1.1.
>
> And if we *are* going to ship a separate -devel package for 1.0.2 and
> 1.1 in parallel we are *really* going to need to make sure that
> *neither* of them live in /usr/include/openssl/ where they can be
> picked up by default.
I am against moving 1.1 into separate /usr/include. If we ship the
compat-openssl10-devel I will make it conflict with 1.1.0 openssl-
devel. Of course that won't allow compiling things against both
versions but that is something we do not want to allow anyway.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
(You'll never know whether the road is wrong though.)
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
