> On Sep 26, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Alexander Hansen <alexanderk.han...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> 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 >
Ah! Yeah, I have a vague recollection that it was about cvs. Good, it’ll go in crypto then. Daniel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
