On 2017-02-26 20:31:23 [+0100], Pino Toscano wrote: > In data domenica 26 febbraio 2017 20:15:25 CET, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ha > scritto: > > On 02/26/2017 07:48 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > I don't insist on anything. I noticed that this package does not depend on > > > libssl after building and that is why I took a look. > > That is because it dlopen's libssl at runtime. > > > Interesting. So, I guess the best option would actually to drop the B-D on > > libssl-dev completely. I have checked it myself and indeed libkf5khtml5 does > > not depend on libssl at all. Plus, the package also builds fine with the > > build dependency on libssl-dev completely removed. > > That is because it is an optional dependency. > > > Lisandro, maybe just dropping the build dependency on libssl-dev would be > > the best option if it's actually not used at all? > > NACK.
Yes, correct. There are a few symbols that export key creation and signing (or something like that) so if you build this package without ssl then those symbols are missing which would require a transition :) Again. If someone who knows that package can say that it works with fine 1.1 and the missing symbols don't matter and it won't clash with 1.0 in any way then feel free to close this. We are in freeze after all. Sebastian
