Why use an old GNUTLS?

[KH KH]

2007/9/17, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com>:
> Leo wrote:
> > On 2007-09-16 13:37 +0100, Alex Lancaster wrote:
> >> Hmm, I notice that gnutls is used as a shared library in many
> >> applications that it might be non-trivial to update if the .so version
> >> is bumped because it will require a lot of rebuilds.
> >
> > That's why it is difficult for users to upgrade this package. I try to
> > remove Gnutls and that will remove 299 packages that depend on it as
> > well.
>
> Does anyone know if this new GnuTLS is API and/or ABI compatible?  I
> know that they broke a load of API functions between 1.0 and 1.4, which
> required a source patches and retesting for libvirt.
I don't know about gnutls 2.0 case, but updating from 1.4.1 to 1.6.3
is safe, meaning that there is no SONAME bump . So there isn't any
"need" to rebuild... (as far as i know). That might be interesting to
have it.

Updating gnutls-devel >= 1.5.4 will allow filezilla 3.0.0 (final) to
be available to the F-7 branch. So now, gntls 1.6.3 is only within the
devel branch. But it just has been commited for the F-7 branch. I will
request F-7 branch for filezilla and build for F-7 if released...

Someone know if gnutls 2.0.0 is already BuildRequired by some apps ?
Anyway Might be interesting to rebuild packages in devel now instead
of having it updated later...(if possible)

Nicolas (kwizart )


> Rich.
>
> --
> Emerging Technologies, Red Hat - http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/
> Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
> Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom.  Registered in
> England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
>