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

Julien Cristau jcristau at debian.org
Tue May 30 12:32:23 UTC 2017

On 05/30/2017 07:16 AM, Eric Dorland wrote:
> * 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'm not sure, to be honest.  I don't know if there are any other similar
cases right now.  This package name wouldn't survive stretch in any
case, I guess?

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


More information about the pkg-opensc-maint mailing list