It was recently merged to f41
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:37 AM Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Sept 2024 at 15:36, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:05 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> > It's fixed in rawhide now, but are we still against fixin
On Wed, 18 Sept 2024 at 15:36, Dmitry Belyavskiy
wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:05 PM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>
> > It's fixed in rawhide now, but are we still against fixing it for F41?
> > Affected Fedora packages might have been fixed, but people build other
> > sof
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:05 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> It's fixed in rawhide now, but are we still against fixing it for F41?
> Affected Fedora packages might have been fixed, but people build other
> software on Fedora that isn't already packaged and built in koji.
I'm ok w
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 16:32, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:54:12AM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
> > However, we should still consider the effect this will have on
> > developers that build software on Fedora — they will also have to
> > specify -DOPENSSL_NO_ENGINE now or see failin
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:54:12AM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
> However, we should still consider the effect this will have on
> developers that build software on Fedora — they will also have to
> specify -DOPENSSL_NO_ENGINE now or see failing builds, and we don’t
> really see that impact until
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 11:02, Clemens Lang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > On 23. Jul 2024, at 16:36, Gary Buhrmaster
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 8:55 AM Clemens Lang wrote:
> >
> >> However, we should still consider the effect this will have on developers
> >> that build software on Fedor
Hi,
> On 23. Jul 2024, at 16:36, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 8:55 AM Clemens Lang wrote:
>
>> However, we should still consider the effect this will have on developers
>> that build software on Fedora — they will also have to specify
>> -DOPENSSL_NO_ENGINE now or see f
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 8:55 AM Clemens Lang wrote:
> However, we should still consider the effect this will have on developers
> that build software on Fedora — they will also have to specify
> -DOPENSSL_NO_ENGINE now or see failing builds, and we don’t really see that
> impact until 41 relea
Hi,
> On 22. Jul 2024, at 20:42, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
>
> At this point, this sounds like the best approach.
> The problem is well understood and the build failures are trivially
> resolved by adding a single BuildRequires line or a single define.
>
> If we start changing thing
On 22/07/2024 13:34, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in
Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechanism
for such a change.
It's too late for F41. The mass rebuild is completed and the package
maintainers have ma
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 05:12:44PM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On 22. Jul 2024, at 16:32, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 4:28 PM Clemens Lang wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Neal,
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 22. Jul 2024, at 15:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The CentOS app
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:35 AM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in
> Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechanism
> for such a change.
I think you are free to submit a (very) late change
request, but changin
Hi,
> On 22. Jul 2024, at 16:32, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 4:28 PM Clemens Lang wrote:
>>
>> Hi Neal,
>>
>>
>>> On 22. Jul 2024, at 15:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>>
>>> The CentOS approach isn't a deprecation, it's flat out removal. It's a
>>> completely different chan
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 4:28 PM Clemens Lang wrote:
>
> Hi Neal,
>
>
> > On 22. Jul 2024, at 15:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > The CentOS approach isn't a deprecation, it's flat out removal. It's a
> > completely different change.
>
> This isn’t correct. The headers are removed, but the ABI is sti
Hi Neal,
> On 22. Jul 2024, at 15:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> The CentOS approach isn't a deprecation, it's flat out removal. It's a
> completely different change.
This isn’t correct. The headers are removed, but the ABI is still present in
CentOS Stream, so it is not flat out removal.
For Fed
Dear Neal,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:05 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> The CentOS approach isn't a deprecation, it's flat out removal. It's a
> completely different change.
>
> Is anyone helping to migrate users of the engine API to newer APIs? If
> that's not happening, then there's no way to support r
Dear Zbyszek,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 2:57 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 01:34:39PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> > So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in
> > Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechan
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 8:57 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 01:34:39PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> > So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in
> > Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechanism
> > for suc
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 01:34:39PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in
> Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechanism
> for such a change.
Does is make sense at this point? The mass rebuild is (almost?) f
Hi Dima,
> On 22. Jul 2024, at 13:34, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> as the changes described in
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpensslDeprecateEngine
>
> were approved and implemented and a week or two has passed, we can
> summarize the consequences.
>
> Lack of
Dear colleagues,
as the changes described in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpensslDeprecateEngine
were approved and implemented and a week or two has passed, we can
summarize the consequences.
Lack of openssl/engine.h file moved to a separate package is not
processed correctly by packag
21 matches
Mail list logo
