# Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> (10 Apr 2015) # Breaks pretty much all consumers, like samba # Mask until it's more usable >=net-libs/gnutls-3.4.0
I think the problem is that the openssl compatible library is no longer built by default, so either a USE flag for this should be introduced or the library built unconditionally
(In reply to Graham Murray from comment #1) > I think the problem is that the openssl compatible library is no longer > built by default, so either a USE flag for this should be introduced or the > library built unconditionally thanks! added openssl USE for but gnutls-3.3.14 and gnutls-3.4.0.
*** Bug 546274 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Let's make this a tracker bug...
There is also an issue in dev-libs/efl, when built with gnutls USE flag (even when gnutls itself is built with openssl USE flag): https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg1314316.html
(In reply to Martin Jansa from comment #5) > There is also an issue in dev-libs/efl, when built with gnutls USE flag Please file a new bug report for each issue.
commit b9a33361371825153728d97d0503a42eb8c62d10 Author: Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@gentoo.org> Date: Tue May 10 13:44:32 2016 package.mask: Unleash >=net-libs/gnutls-3.4.0 to ~arch. Signed-off-by: Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@gentoo.org>
Hi, I committed gnutls-3.5.0, so basically nobody will test 3.4 now. Do you think we should mask the 3.5? Thanks!
(In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #8) > Hi, > I committed gnutls-3.5.0, so basically nobody will test 3.4 now. > Do you think we should mask the 3.5? > Thanks! According to the release notes and documentation, 3.5 is backward compatible (at least at source code level) with 3.4 - in other words none of the removal of deprecated functions which plagued the 3.3 to 3.4 transition. So if it builds with 3.4 then it should build and work with 3.5. So if 3.4 is going ~arch then there should be no reason to mask 3.5.
Do you want to skip stabilization of 3.4?
(In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #10) > Do you want to skip stabilization of 3.4? 3.4 is current stable so I would recommend stabilizing that over 3.5 at the present time
(In reply to Kristian Fiskerstrand from comment #11) > (In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #10) > > Do you want to skip stabilization of 3.4? > > 3.4 is current stable so I would recommend stabilizing that over 3.5 at the > present time So we need to mask >=3.5 Polynomial-C?
(In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #12) > (In reply to Kristian Fiskerstrand from comment #11) > > (In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #10) > > > Do you want to skip stabilization of 3.4? > > > > 3.4 is current stable so I would recommend stabilizing that over 3.5 at the > > present time > > So we need to mask >=3.5 Yeah, that sounds like a prudent choice to me to ensure proper testing of 3.4 before stabilization.
I have no issues with masking gnutls-3.5.x although I am under the impression that there's no real difference in testing gnutls-3.4.x or gnutls-3.5.x.
I masked >=gnutls-3.5.0, we leave this as long as upstream does not treat the 3.5 series as stable. This will enable us to stabilize the 3.4 in the mean time.