From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] OpenSSL 1.1.0 Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 10:06:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20160903140613.GB12802@jasmine> References: <87y43albe9.fsf@gnu.org> <20160902201422.GA3701@jasmine> <8737lhm6rk.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34512) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgBad-0005Kx-Mw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 10:06:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgBaY-0007nx-Hs for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 10:06:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8737lhm6rk.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 03:50:55PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Leo Famulari skribis: > > When I put "openssl" in the 'name' field, as attached, `guix build > > openssl` gives me 1.1.0, which is not right. The other *-next packages > > all seem to use "name-next" as the name. > > Yes, but it’s different. Guile 2.1, for instance, is the development > series, so it makes sense to give it a different name so users don’t end > up using the “wrong” series. > > Conversely, IIUC, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is the new stable series, no? 1.1.0 is the new stable series, but I haven't found any software that can use the new interface yet. So, I don't want to make 1.1.0 the default OpenSSL version in Guix. Does that make sense? > > Also, I wonder if this should inherit from openssl? > > > > Presumably there will be more security updates to openssl@1.0.2 before > > openssl@1.1.0 is ready for general use, and I'd wouldn't like for > > openssl@1.0.2 updates to be delayed while we wait to see if > > openssl@1.1.0 still builds with the changes. > > Though OpenSSL builds in 5–10 minutes, so the extra check wouldn’t take > so long, no? I guess it will not matter for now, since nothing will be using it. When it becomes widely used, we can revisit this question.