On 2020-04-05 Niels Möller <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi,
> I've updated the NEWS file, and I don't think there are any easy changes > pending. Please let me know ASAP if there's anything missing in NEWS, or > if there are additional changes you think ought to be included before > release. Hello, I am not totally sure but think the non-lockstep soname bump of libhogweed and libnettle is quite painful: According to objdump -R GnuTLS uses internal symbols of both libhogweed and libnettle (e.g. _nettle_mpn_set_base256_le@HOGWEED_INTERNAL_5_0 and _nettle_write_le64@NETTLE_INTERNAL_7_0). These nettle *internal* symbols seem to be incompatible in 3.6, at least they are versioned differently (@NETTLE_INTERNAL_7_1). This makes to impossible install nettle-3.6 development files (libhogweed6/libnettle7/nettle-dev) while keeping gnutls runtime (libgnutls30, which requires libnettle7 [not 3.6] and libhogweed5) working. One can co-install libhogweed6 in addition to libhogweed5, but upgrading libnettle7 to 3.6 breaks gnutls runtime due to unresolved symbols. Having non-working gnutls is quite a big issue, since e.g. apt depends on it. cu Andreas PS: On top of this the Debian nettle *packaging* currently is broken with respect to unsynced soname bumps of libhogweed/libnettle runtime packages, which is a different issue, probably a bug. _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
