Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 12:17:43 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Update GnuTLS Message-ID: <CADLo839P9XWkS8_jNtTOggSxVas3OfL2o%2Bg58nmx2hu7uYby=w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP1764F50271AE8D46B5EAAE993190@phx.gbl> References: <20110831080749.51f36daa@seibercom.net> <20110831132843.GI28186@home.opsec.eu> <20110901034552.GB2633@reemsky> <BLU0-SMTP1764F50271AE8D46B5EAAE993190@phx.gbl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1 September 2011 11:51, Carmel <carmel_ny@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:45:54 -0700 > Roman Bogorodskiy articulated: > >> =A0 Kurt Jaeger wrote: >> >> > > GnuTLS has been updated. URL: >> > > <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.gnutls.devel/524= 3> >> > > >> > > I was wondering if there is any work being done on getting the new >> > > version into the ports tree. GnuTLS 3.0.x branch replaces the >> > > GnuTLS 2.12.x branch as the supported stable branch. The >> > > experimental 2.99.x branch is now probably comatose as well. >> > >> > gnutls-3.0.1 needs p11-kit in version 0.4 or newer, maybe that's why >> > we're still at 2.x ? >> > >> > And re-testing the whole dependencies on that -- sounds like a >> > close call for 9.0-REL... >> >> Hello, >> >> p11-kit is not a main issue indeed. >> >> First of all, I'd prefer to wait some time and see what kind of >> problems gnutls users have with the new branch since it's quite new >> still, the first 3.0 release was just about one months ago. >> >> And yes, it takes some time to build-test all the dependencies and >> additionally it's nice to be able to run-test all the stuff (which I >> obviously cannot do), so I just test a number of more or less popular >> ports in runtime, but it almost always happens that some of the ports >> end up broken after update. >> >> So I would prefer to wait with the update a couple of weeks. Or, if >> there's an urgent need I may consider adding it as gnutls3 meanwhile. > > IMHO, renaming the existing port to gnutls2 would leave the "gnutls" > port name available for the new 3.x version. Personally, I think it > would eliminate a lot of confusion. I know on the "claws-mail" forum, > there has been chatter from the developers about work they did to > insure that the app works with the 3.x version and still be compatible > with the older 2.x version. Other than that, I have no actual knowledge > of how other programs will interact with it. > > In any case, releasing this into the ports system with the advanced > notice that its compatibility with existing ports is still > undetermined as well as expressly requesting feedback on ports that > break or otherwise fail with this new version would be advisable and > welcome. Way too many ports are being released lately with no advanced > warning that they were not tested properly. At the risk of another flamewar, this has been covered repeatedly, so please stop bringing it up. The ports in question have all had advance notice on the mailing list, with requests for testing and feedback -- as you have just suggested. None was received, so it must be assumed that there were no problems. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839P9XWkS8_jNtTOggSxVas3OfL2o%2Bg58nmx2hu7uYby=w>