Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:50:41PM +, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:14:24AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 06:16:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > So, despite Julien's valid objection that core library conflicts cause

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

Hi, I agree with Steve that we should absolutely leave the gnutls and nss variants alone. I disagree with him that there's value in keeping the libcurl.so.4 SONAME for the openssl variant, in particular since libcurl's ABI has proven to depend on which version of which crypto lib it's using, so

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:14:24AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi again, > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 06:16:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > So, despite Julien's valid objection that core library conflicts cause > > dist-upgrades to be more brittle, I think the right answer here is: > > >

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

Hi again, On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 06:16:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > So, despite Julien's valid objection that core library conflicts cause > dist-upgrades to be more brittle, I think the right answer here is: > - keep all sonames as-is. > - rename libcurl3 to libcurl4. > - leave the

Re: Bug#858398: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Steve Langasek wrote: In fact, some of us who remember are still around ;-) The historical context here is that curl upstream made a determination that the SONAME should be bumped for an "ABI break" that was not an ABI break in any traditional sense, didn't appear to

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

Hi all, Dimitri drew my attention to this bug and the associated PR, because Ubuntu is now in the process of transitioning to openssl 1.1 as well, and we have somewhat shorter timelines in order to complete the transition in time for Ubuntu 18.04 LTS (releasing in April). Alessandro wrote: >

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

> "Julien" == Julien Cristau writes: >> Following discussion on the ticket (#858398) it was suggested to >> follow the strategy used for the GCC 5 C++ ABI transition, that >> is, rename the libcurl package and add Conflicts+Replaces for teh >> old

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

On 01/11/2018 12:59 AM, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 06:09:39PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 15:49:26 +, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> Reasons I am aware that it *might* be a bad idea are: >>> >>> 1. libcurl exposes parts of the openssl ABI, via >>>

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

What about the possibility of changing the package name but *not* the soname. That would allow to catch all the dependencies within Debian, but would neither diverge the soname nor detect dependency breakage with non-packaged builds. That said, libcurl is popular enough and basic enough I'd

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

Control: block 858927 by -1 On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:26:20AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-11-23 17:09:09 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:57:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > 2. For the reason just mentioned, it might be a good idea to put in a

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:05:22PM +, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 07:10:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1"): > > > What I suggest above would be a transitio

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior schrieb: > I did a grep and it seems that all affected users are blocked by > #858398 except for hhvm. I have patches to switch HHVM to openssl 1.1, only need to find some time to prepare an upload. Cheers, Moritz

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

On 2017-11-23 17:09:09 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:57:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > 2. For the reason just mentioned, it might be a good idea to put in a > >Breaks against old versions of packages using > >CURLOPT_SSL_CTX_FUNCTION. However, (a) I am not

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 07:10:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1"): > > What I suggest above would be a transition that should be coordinated > > with the release team like other transitions. > >

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1"): > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1"): > > What I suggest above would be a transition that should be coordinated > > with the release team like other transitions.

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1"): > What I suggest above would be a transition that should be coordinated > with the release team like other transitions. I'm not 100% opposed to doing this as a normal library transition with a soname change.

Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

(Resending to fix the mail headers, sorry. Please reply to this one, not the previous one.) Hi. You're receiving this mail because you fall into one or more of the following categories: * Are associated with the curl package (To) * Have been involved in discussions I found in the BTS about

Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1

[ trimmed Cc list ] On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:57:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >... > Reasons I am aware that it *might* be a bad idea are: > > 1. libcurl exposes parts of the openssl ABI, via >CURLOPT_SSL_CTX_FUNCTION, and this would be an implicit ABI break >without libcurl soname