Thomas Klausner <tk%giga.or.at@localhost> writes: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:10:50AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> Thomas Klausner <tk%giga.or.at@localhost> writes: >> >> I think moving pkgsrc openssl to 1.1 is out of the question before >> 2018Q1. >> >> I suspect we're going to need the sub-prefix 1.0 as we update to 1.1, in >> order to avoid breaking half of pkgsrc. Despite the troubles, it seems >> worthwhile as part of making the most of a bad situation. >> >> Are you suggesting some way for packages to build against pkgsrc 1.0 >> while system is at 1.1, as a first step, before pkgsrc is updated? > > I'm not really sure about the solution, but I'm thinking of something > like adding an openssl-1.0 package with its own prefix, switching the > packages that need that version to it, and updating openssl to 1.1. On netbsd-current, does pkgsrc use the native 1.1 exclusively now? If so, we should get a sense of how bad things are from a bulk build on current. For things like python 2.7 with many dependencies, I suspect it may be better to patch them for 1.1. But we can't fix everything. Another question is how much various upstreams will cope given 6 months of waiting. I realize NetBSD-current is an immediate issue, but it's not clear to me that faster updating to 1.1 in pkgsrc is optimal.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature