On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:04:21PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: > Well, ideally it'll compile with both OpenSSL 1.0.2 and 1.1 and > therefore be binNMU-able. (This has the advantage that such a > patch is much more likely to get accepted by upstream.) In that > case you can upload a version that Closes: #nnn the RC bug.
It turned out my packages were easy, they just needed OPENSSL_API_COMPAT to be defined accordingly. However, I don't think all upstreams will work like this. I can easily see some just requiring OpenSSL 1.1 and change the code accordingly. And I doubt it's wise for us to require packages to be patched to compile with the old version of OpenSSL, too. > (Also, if you ever want to backport stuff to jessie-backports, it > is necessary to still support building against OpenSSL 1.0 even > after the transition. That's not something relevant for all > packages, as not everything is going to be backported, but there > are definitely some packages that will be affected.) What prevents us from backporting OpenSSL? Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael at xmpp dot meskes dot org VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL
