> On Sep 26, 2016, at 10:53, Max Horn <m...@quendi.de> wrote: > > Hi, > >> On 26 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Daniel Johnson <daniel.johnso...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> There is a new OpenSSL libversion out, 1.1.0. I’ve made a new package but >> want to check with everyone else where I should put it, base or crypto. It >> does have a new BuildDepends, text-template-pm, so that would have to move >> to base too. Also note that not everything will be able to use it right >> away. There have been a lot of changes to the API (removed functions, >> structs made opaque, new threading model) so other packages usually need >> changes to work with it. Opinions? > > Why would we put this into base? The (naive) logical approach would be to put > it into crypto, and thus also leave text-template-pm out of base. > > I don't say there are no good reasons for putting it into base/, but if there > are, they should be named explicitly. > > > Cheers, > Max >
Checking the commits history, it looks like openssl100 is in base because we _thought_ that cvs needed it, but it actually didn’t. http://fink.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/fink/dists/10.7/stable/main/finkinfo/base/cvs.info?view=log With that not actually the case, I don’t see a compelling reason to put the newer libversion there. -- Alexander Hansen, Ph.D. Fink User Liaison ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ fink-core mailing list fink-core@lists.sourceforge.net List archive: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.core Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-core
