Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add openssl 1.1

[Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1897 bytes --]

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:34 PM Alexander Kanavin <
alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On 05/10/2017 09:56 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> > Why not do this in a "softer" way - make the new 1.1 package have the
> > obscured name (and not be preferred by default)?  That way existing
> > uses of the older 1.0 package can continue but users can migrate to
> > 1.1 as they see fit?
>
> I have an answer which you might not particularly like. But here goes:
>
> What will actually happen is that no one will do anything to port their
> stuff until it's time to remove 1.0 because upstream has EOLd it. And
> then there'll still be complaints that more time is needed for the
> transition. I'd like to gently push people to plan this transition
> already now - and it's as gentle as it can be: if you pull from master
> and your things no longer build, make one simple change and they will.
> It's part and parcel of being on the bleeding edge, or rebasing to the
> new yocto release: not everything works exactly as before, and most
> components are newer and different and not always fully compatible.



It is a cross distro item really we should find out what other Linux
distributions are doing about it moving forward unless major distros also
have same policy there won't be much momentum this would gain among the
packages ecosystems this could also help in sharing the porting burden

>
>
> The other reason is that it's more work for me: I would have to update
> everything in oe-core to use the new recipe, instead of fixing just a
> few recipes that need to stay with 1.0. And then again the same thing
> will happen when 1.2 is out.
>
> Alex
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2572 bytes --]