On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 11:52 -0800, Patrick McLean wrote:
> Given glibc upstream's tentative plans to remove libcrypt [1], I think
> we should start working out the kinks well in advance. Toolchain has
> already added a package.use.force-ed "crypt" USE flag to
> sys-libs/glibc-2.30-r2 [2]. The main alternative out there is libxcrypt,
> which I have recently bumped and added a package.use.mask-ed "system"
> USE flag to make it provide the "system" version of libcrypt.so.
>
> To give us time to work out dependencies in advance, I would like to
> propose a virtual to provide libcrypt.so, and we can gradually update
> all users of libcrypt to {R,}DEPEND on this virtual.
>
> Maybe once this is in place and the obvious/common packages are
> updated, we could request a tinderbox run to flush out what was missed.Are you planning to use backwards-compatible .so.1 version of libxcrypt, or do you plan to switch to .so.2? > > > [1] > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=NEWS;h=50479f17c9a3a5ef074dafa3f23aca954b82bd6a;hb=HEAD#l768 > [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/699422 -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
