Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 02:43:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> > I also read about lots of breakage due to the update so I think it’s >> > okay to add it as “openssl-next” for now. >> >> Agreed (though its fine to use “openssl” in the ‘name’ field IMO.) > > When I put "openssl" in the 'name' field, as attached, `guix build > openssl` gives me 1.1.0, which is not right. The other *-next packages > all seem to use "name-next" as the name.
Yes, but it’s different. Guile 2.1, for instance, is the development series, so it makes sense to give it a different name so users don’t end up using the “wrong” series. Conversely, IIUC, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is the new stable series, no? > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:14:22PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: >> +(define-public openssl-next >> + (package >> + (inherit openssl) > > Also, I wonder if this should inherit from openssl? > > Presumably there will be more security updates to openssl@1.0.2 before > openssl@1.1.0 is ready for general use, and I'd wouldn't like for > openssl@1.0.2 updates to be delayed while we wait to see if > openssl@1.1.0 still builds with the changes. Though OpenSSL builds in 5–10 minutes, so the extra check wouldn’t take so long, no? Anyway, if you think keeping them separate is more convenient, go for it! Thanks, Ludo’.
