Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 04:24:10PM -0400, Will Young wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 15:19 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 04:06:53PM -0400, Will Young wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 12:11 -0700, Kais Belgaied wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> so, any dependency on a particular version of OpenSSL's lib{crypto,ssl} ?
>>>>>
>>>>> doesn't this case require an ARC contract against PSARC/2003/500 for the
>>>>> import of OpenSSL ?
>>>>>
>>>> I no longer saw a need for a contract as of the integration of:
>>>> 6806387 Move OpenSSL from ON to SFW
>>>>
>>> The move alone could not imply a change of interface stability.
>>> PSARC/2006/555 (Move OpenSSL to /usr) did not change the interface
>>> stability of any part of OpenSSL (see section 4.5 of the one-pager).
>>>
>> It's my understanding that within one gate no contract is needed
>> (updating any element of the gate one is responsible for
>> examining/updating related elements.) Is that not accurate?
>>
>
> Ah, sorry, another thinko on my part.
>
Actually, it depends. A contract would be required if the interfaces are
"Project Private", even within the same consolidation. If the interfaces
are "Consolidation Private", then yes, no contract would be required.
Actually, with that last statement, its clear that moving a subsystem
which has Consolidation Private interfaces to a new subsystem has
*ARCHITECTURAL* impact. With that in mind, I hope such moves are
properly reviewed at ARC. (Something for folks doing such moves to
consider...)
- Garrett
