On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 11:52 -0800, Patrick McLean wrote: > Given glibc upstream's tentative plans to remove libcrypt [1], I think > we should start working out the kinks well in advance. Toolchain has > already added a package.use.force-ed "crypt" USE flag to > sys-libs/glibc-2.30-r2 [2]. The main alternative out there is libxcrypt, > which I have recently bumped and added a package.use.mask-ed "system" > USE flag to make it provide the "system" version of libcrypt.so. > > To give us time to work out dependencies in advance, I would like to > propose a virtual to provide libcrypt.so, and we can gradually update > all users of libcrypt to {R,}DEPEND on this virtual. > > Maybe once this is in place and the obvious/common packages are > updated, we could request a tinderbox run to flush out what was missed.
Are you planning to use backwards-compatible .so.1 version of libxcrypt, or do you plan to switch to .so.2? > > > [1] > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=NEWS;h=50479f17c9a3a5ef074dafa3f23aca954b82bd6a;hb=HEAD#l768 > [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/699422 -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part