On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 16:33 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 04/27/2015 03:56 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > Hello, > > Next week I plan to update nettle to 3.1.1 and gnutls to 3.4.0 in > > rawhide. That would require a recompilation of the packages that depend > > on them. Any objections? > My concern is that there's probably a lot of 3rd party apps that use > gnutls. Even if it's just as simple as rebuilding, it probably takes a > while for them to switch over. > I think it would make sense to keep ABI compatibility with the old > soname for one Fedora release, just to give 3rd parties time to > transition over. I could help making an ABI compat package for this if > you agree it makes sense? A compat library is a non-trivial task. In that particular ABI change there were changes in header definitions (e.g., rearrangement of enumerations), and functions which were either not safe to use under TLS 1.2, or related to RSA-EXPORT ciphersuites were removed [0]. It may be easier to ship both gnutls libraries as debian does because there are versioned symbols, but I'm not sure whether that's acceptable. I've not seen it in other packages in fedora. (as Florian mentioned, the above can only be done for gnutls, the nettle library introduced versioned symbols only in its latest release). regards, Nikos [0]. http://www.gnutls.org/manual/html_node/Upgrading-from-previous-versions.html#Upgrading-from-previous-versions -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
