On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:50:41PM +, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:14:24AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 06:16:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > So, despite Julien's valid objection that core library conflicts cause
Hi,
I agree with Steve that we should absolutely leave the gnutls and nss
variants alone. I disagree with him that there's value in keeping the
libcurl.so.4 SONAME for the openssl variant, in particular since
libcurl's ABI has proven to depend on which version of which crypto lib
it's using, so
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:14:24AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 06:16:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So, despite Julien's valid objection that core library conflicts cause
> > dist-upgrades to be more brittle, I think the right answer here is:
>
> >
Hi again,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 06:16:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So, despite Julien's valid objection that core library conflicts cause
> dist-upgrades to be more brittle, I think the right answer here is:
> - keep all sonames as-is.
> - rename libcurl3 to libcurl4.
> - leave the
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Steve Langasek wrote:
In fact, some of us who remember are still around ;-) The historical
context here is that curl upstream made a determination that the SONAME
should be bumped for an "ABI break" that was not an ABI break in any
traditional sense, didn't appear to
Hi all,
Dimitri drew my attention to this bug and the associated PR, because Ubuntu
is now in the process of transitioning to openssl 1.1 as well, and we have
somewhat shorter timelines in order to complete the transition in time for
Ubuntu 18.04 LTS (releasing in April).
Alessandro wrote:
>
On 01/11/2018 12:59 AM, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 06:09:39PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 15:49:26 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Reasons I am aware that it *might* be a bad idea are:
>>>
>>> 1. libcurl exposes parts of the openssl ABI, via
>>>
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 06:09:39PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 15:49:26 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Reasons I am aware that it *might* be a bad idea are:
> >
> > 1. libcurl exposes parts of the openssl ABI, via
> >CURLOPT_SSL_CTX_FUNCTION, and this would be an
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 15:49:26 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (Resending to fix the mail headers, sorry. Please reply to this one,
> not the previous one.)
>
> Hi. You're receiving this mail because you fall into one or more of the
> following categories:
> * Are associated with the curl
Control: block 858927 by -1
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:26:20AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-11-23 17:09:09 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:57:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > 2. For the reason just mentioned, it might be a good idea to put in a
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:05:22PM +, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 07:10:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1"):
> > > What I suggest above would be a transition that should be coordinated
> > > with the
On 2017-11-23 17:09:09 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:57:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 2. For the reason just mentioned, it might be a good idea to put in a
> >Breaks against old versions of packages using
> >CURLOPT_SSL_CTX_FUNCTION. However, (a) I am not
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 07:10:51PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1"):
> > What I suggest above would be a transition that should be coordinated
> > with the release team like other transitions.
>
> I'm not 100% opposed to doing this as
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1"):
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1"):
> > What I suggest above would be a transition that should be coordinated
> > with the release team like other transitions.
>
> I'm not 100% opposed to doing
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Proposed (lib)curl switch to openssl 1.1"):
> What I suggest above would be a transition that should be coordinated
> with the release team like other transitions.
I'm not 100% opposed to doing this as a normal library transition with
a soname change. I don't feel I
(Resending to fix the mail headers, sorry. Please reply to this one,
not the previous one.)
Hi. You're receiving this mail because you fall into one or more of the
following categories:
* Are associated with the curl package (To)
* Have been involved in discussions I found in the BTS about
[ trimmed Cc list ]
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 01:57:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>...
> Reasons I am aware that it *might* be a bad idea are:
>
> 1. libcurl exposes parts of the openssl ABI, via
>CURLOPT_SSL_CTX_FUNCTION, and this would be an implicit ABI break
>without libcurl soname
Hi. You're receiving this mail because you fall into one or more of the
following categories:
* Are associated with the curl package (To)
* Have been involved in discussions I found in the BTS about
libcurl and openssl 1.1 (CC), eg in #850880 or #844018
* Maintain a package which calls
18 matches
Mail list logo
