On St, 2016-10-12 at 10:28 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 10.10.2016 v 16:29 Tomas Mraz napsal(a):
> >
> > On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >
> > > Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and
> > > > the
> > > > upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package
> > > > from
> > > > Fedora.
> > > >
> > > > We do not want to keep 1.0.2 devel around as that could make it
> > > > to
> > > > look
> > > > like the 1.0.2 is still fully "supported" in Fedora and there
> > > > would
> > > > be
> > > > no incentive to switch to 1.1.0. Also to get any new features
> > > > from
> > > > upstream OpenSSL we have to move to newer versions as they are
> > > > released
> > > > as the old versions get only bug fixes.
> > > IMHO, this is not acceptable. If the API of a library changes
> > > enough
> > > to
> > > warrant a compat package, you have to provide the -devel for the
> > > compat
> > > package as well. Dropping all the packages that don't build
> > > against
> > > the new
> > > incompatible version from Fedora is not a reasonable plan.
> > We will work on porting the dependent packages to the new API. If
> > by
> > some reasonable deadline there are still some packages that are not
> > dead by other reasons and we are unable to port them we can add
> > -devel
> > to the compat package. Note though that small changes in such
> > packages
> > will be needed anyway as the include files of the compat package
> > will
> > have to be in non-default include directory. (If the package
> > doesn't
> > use pkgconfig to find the needed CFLAGS automatically.)
> >
> But what about stable versions of libraries applications? For
> example,
> in current Rawhide, you won't be able to build any stable Ruby
> version
> downloaded as tarball without the compat-openssl-devel. And it is
> question, if upstream will be able to backport the OpenSSL 1.1.0
> support
> into stable Ruby versions [1]. Not mentioning all the older Ruby
> versions which are unsupported, but up until now, you could build
> them
> on your own (actually it should be possible to disable the OpenSSL
> support, but that is not common scenario).
>
> I personally don't care much about this scenario, but I am pretty
> sure
> that others might care more ....
Yes, I am getting more and more inclined to ship compat-openssl10-
devel. However I will make it conflicting with openssl-devel and its
use for Fedora packages should be strongly discouraged.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
(You'll never know whether the road is wrong though.)
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
