On St, 2016-10-12 at 01:23 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 16:29 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 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.)
> Even if it uses pkgconfig, it's still going to need to look for
> openssl102.pc or whatever we call it, because just 'openssl' is going
> to get it OpenSSL 1.1.
> And if we *are* going to ship a separate -devel package for 1.0.2 and
> 1.1 in parallel we are *really* going to need to make sure that
> *neither* of them live in /usr/include/openssl/ where they can be
> picked up by default.

I am against moving 1.1 into separate /usr/include. If we ship the
compat-openssl10-devel I will make it conflict with 1.1.0 openssl-
devel. Of course that won't allow compiling things against both
versions but that is something we do not want to allow anyway.

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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to