Hi Sebastian On 2022-05-28 16:49:07, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2022-05-27 15:36:53 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 06:26:57PM +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > > > > > That leaves #1011051. What's your view on that bug? > > > > So my understanding is that 1.1.1 doesn't understand the new > > configuration file and tries to load an engine (instead of a > > provider). > > > > We could ship a file that's comptabile with 1.1.1. That would make it > > a little bit harder to load some providers by default, but maybe that's > > something you want to do per application anyway. > > If that works, let's do that. > > Otherwise I'd fear that the only other options are openssl breaking > libssl1.1 or renaming /etc/ssl/openssl.cnf to have a version specific > name. Given the high number reverse dependencies involved in this > transition (and also those depending on bin:openssl), I'd prefer to > avoid a Breaks that could have the potential to force the libssl1.1 -> > libssl3 upgrade to be more of a lockstep transition than needed.
I see that there was another openssl upload. Any reason a fix for this issue wasn't included in the upload of 3.0.3-6? Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher