1 |
On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 11:52 -0800, Patrick McLean wrote: |
2 |
> Given glibc upstream's tentative plans to remove libcrypt [1], I think |
3 |
> we should start working out the kinks well in advance. Toolchain has |
4 |
> already added a package.use.force-ed "crypt" USE flag to |
5 |
> sys-libs/glibc-2.30-r2 [2]. The main alternative out there is libxcrypt, |
6 |
> which I have recently bumped and added a package.use.mask-ed "system" |
7 |
> USE flag to make it provide the "system" version of libcrypt.so. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> To give us time to work out dependencies in advance, I would like to |
10 |
> propose a virtual to provide libcrypt.so, and we can gradually update |
11 |
> all users of libcrypt to {R,}DEPEND on this virtual. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Maybe once this is in place and the obvious/common packages are |
14 |
> updated, we could request a tinderbox run to flush out what was missed. |
15 |
|
16 |
Are you planning to use backwards-compatible .so.1 version of libxcrypt, |
17 |
or do you plan to switch to .so.2? |
18 |
|
19 |
> |
20 |
> |
21 |
> [1] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=NEWS;h=50479f17c9a3a5ef074dafa3f23aca954b82bd6a;hb=HEAD#l768 |
22 |
> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/699422 |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Best regards, |
26 |
Michał Górny |