On 07/08/09 13:36, 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? >>
well, looking back at PSARC/2003/500. it exports the interfaces as Project Private not Consolidation Private. So the contract would still be needed. Alternatively, the supplier of PSARC/2003/500 can judge if it is the right thing for the openssl libs' visibility to be upgraded to consolidation private. Kais. > > Ah, sorry, another thinko on my part. > >