On 04/28/2015 09:10 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 16:33 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: >> 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. We have a bunch, for example see gtk2/gtk3 as an example how to do full parallel installation and support parallel APIs over a long period of time. In this case, however, I think it makes sense to not do a full parallel installation, but just enough to preserve the ABI compatibility and exclude headers and anything else that could be used to link against it. This makes sure that anything newly compiled is built with the new gnutls and we don't lock ourselves into supporting gnutls28 forever. > (as Florian mentioned, the above can only be done for gnutls, the nettle > library introduced versioned symbols only in its latest release). Sure, I was only concerned about gnutls anyway. Nettle is more like a gnutls implementation details, not so many other programs that are using it. -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
