[pkg-opensc-maint] Bug#846548: marked as pending

[Eric Dorland]

* Julien Cristau (jcristau at debian.org) wrote:
> On 05/29/2017 03:15 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Julien Cristau (jcristau at debian.org) wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 03:42:57 +0000, Eric Dorland wrote:
> >>
> >>> tag 846548 pending
> >>> thanks
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> Bug #846548 reported by you has been fixed in the Git repository. You can
> >>> see the changelog below, and you can check the diff of the fix at:
> >>>
> >>>     https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-opensc/libp11.git/commit/?id=e8d6da0
> >>>
> >> So, erm.  This seems like it would break using libengine-pkcs11-openssl
> >> in an application using libssl1.0.2.  As a SONAME bump it also seems
> >> rather inappropriate during the freeze.
> > 
> > That's a good point. I was trying to provide an alternative to the
> > broken NMU that was going to be uploaded, but yes this will break
> > applications built against libssl1.0.2. It does fix using this with
> > the openssl tool however.
> > 
> Right.
> 
> >> I'm very interested in having this fixed in stretch so I can get the
> >> secure-boot stuff working on ftp-master, but this doesn't look like the
> >> way to go.  Not to mention that you'd have to justify the bump from
> >> 0.4.3 to 0.4.4.
> >>
> >> Can you explain your plans here?
> > 
> > As you suggested in your followup, the way forward would appear to be
> > to upload a new libp11 source package that builds against
> > libssl1.0.2. I can also backport all of the changes to 0.4.3 and
> > upload to testing-proposed-updates. Does that sound reasonable?
> > 
> Having read through the 0.4.4 changes I think I'd be ok with getting
> that in if you're confident.  I guess the other question is should
> libp11-dev come from the openssl1.1-using package or the
> openssl1.0.2-using one.  At this late stage I guess it's safer to stay
> with 1.0.2, and have the libp11-openssl1.1 package (or however it's
> called) only provide a libengine-pkcs11-openssl1.1 binary?

OK, I like this plan. We should get the naming right going forward
though for the libengine-pkcs11-openssl1.1 package. Is that how other
packages are handling naming when they depend on a particular version
of openssl?

I should be able to get fixed uploads to unstable in a couple of days.

-- 
Eric Dorland <eric at kuroneko.ca>
43CF 1228 F726 FD5B 474C  E962 C256 FBD5 0022 1E93
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-opensc-maint/attachments/20170530/aa274448/attachment.sig>