From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] OpenSSL 1.1.0 Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 15:50:55 +0200 Message-ID: <8737lhm6rk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87y43albe9.fsf@gnu.org> <20160902201422.GA3701@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59967) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgBLd-00079m-7J for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 09:51:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bgBLY-0004rw-7e for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Sep 2016 09:51:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160902201422.GA3701@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:14:22 -0400") 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: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Leo Famulari skribis: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 02:43:58PM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> > I also read about lots of breakage due to the update so I think it=E2= =80=99s >> > okay to add it as =E2=80=9Copenssl-next=E2=80=9D for now. >>=20 >> Agreed (though its fine to use =E2=80=9Copenssl=E2=80=9D in the =E2=80= =98name=E2=80=99 field IMO.) > > 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=E2=80=99s different. Guile 2.1, for instance, is the developme= nt series, so it makes sense to give it a different name so users don=E2=80=99= t end up using the =E2=80=9Cwrong=E2=80=9D series. Conversely, IIUC, OpenSSL 1.1.0 is the new stable series, no? > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:14:22PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: >> +(define-public openssl-next >> + (package >> + (inherit openssl) > > 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=E2=80=9310 minutes, so the extra check wouldn=E2= =80=99t take so long, no? Anyway, if you think keeping them separate is more convenient, go for it! Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.