On 19.02.2018 11:43, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Since openssl changed their API from 1.0 to 1.1, many programs need
> patches to work; however, they don't seem to exist (yet) or upstream
> decided not to support 1.1. For example, this seems to be the case for
> python-3.4.x (3.5+ is ok), ruby-2.2 (ruby 2.4+ is ok, 2.3 is
> patchable), php-5.6 (php-7+ is ok), ffmpeg2 (ffmpeg3 is fine), and
> some other smaller packages.
>
> Some distributions also provide openssl-1.0 packages, installed into a
> separate sub-prefix (${PREFIX}/include/openssl-1.0 or so).
>
> Do we want to go that way as well?
>
> For leaf packages, I think that would be an appropriate solution, but
> I worry for other packages that you might end up with a mix of
> openssl-1.1 and openssl-1.0 libraries in the same binary.
>
> Thomas
>
I propose to drop incompatible packages unless they are crucial and we
can port them.
I will have a look at ffmpeg2 and try to port it to OpenSSL 1.1.
I noted that there are distros with patches (Debian?) to support newer
OpenSSL.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature