[Pkg-openssl-devel] Re: Accepted openssl 0.9.8-3 (source i386)

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 11:18:19AM +0200, Christoph Martin wrote:
> 
> BTW: Do you think about symbol versioning of openssl097 in sid?

This would only be useful if we had a libssl0.9.7-dev package, so
things can link to it and use the versioned symbols.  Since
that's not the case, there is no reason to version the symbols
for it.

> Steve has a more sophisticated version-script. I have to look into it
> more closely. There are some symbols hidden with his approach. I prefere
> at the moment my patch, because it is only in Configure and one could
> make it an option for the script like --with-symbol-versioning. Also
> Steve missed the version script for the engines shared libraries.

In the long run, I would like to hide symbols, but I prefer to
start hiding symbols by making them static.  I will concentrate
on that first, and send patches upstream.

I think your approach is good enough for now, adding the version
solves the problem (once everything is relinked to it).  In later
upstream version we can try and reduce the number of symbols we
don't want to have exported.

> > - The shlibs should get bumped.  (In theory this shouldn't be a
> >   problem since 0.9.8 didn't make it to testing yet, and we have
> >   an RC bug preventing it.)
> 
> I am not shure about this. We would have an incompatibility again.

What do you mean?  I don't mean to change the soname, I just
mean it should generate a Depends on libssl0.9.8 (>= 0.9.8-4) or
something.

I think we also need the Conflicts on libssl0.9.7, since we had
version without symbol versions, but I think we should ask some
advise (from the release team?) for that.  Adding a Conflict will
sure make it harder to get the new version into testing, but it
looks like it's the right thing to do to me.


Kurt