On St, 2016-10-12 at 12:40 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On St, 2016-10-12 at 10:28 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> > But what about stable versions of libraries applications? For
> > example,
> > in current Rawhide, you won't be able to build any stable Ruby
> > version
> > downloaded as tarball wit
On St, 2016-10-12 at 15:33 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On St, 2016-10-12 at 14:39 +0200, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, October 07, 2016 14:49:49 Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > the openssl will be rebased in Rawhide to 1.1.0 on Monday. There
> > > will
> > > be al
On St, 2016-10-12 at 14:39 +0200, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Friday, October 07, 2016 14:49:49 Tomas Mraz wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the openssl will be rebased in Rawhide to 1.1.0 on Monday. There
> > will
> > be also 1.0.2 compat package (compat-openssl10) so the dependencies
> > are
> > not b
On Friday, October 07, 2016 14:49:49 Tomas Mraz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the openssl will be rebased in Rawhide to 1.1.0 on Monday. There will
> be also 1.0.2 compat package (compat-openssl10) so the dependencies are
> not broken and Rawhide should be installable. Also things that do not
> depend on o
On St, 2016-10-12 at 10:28 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 10.10.2016 v 16:29 Tomas Mraz napsal(a):
> >
> > On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >
> > > Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and
> > > > the
> > > > u
On St, 2016-10-12 at 08:21 +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2016-10-12, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> >
> > On St, 2016-10-12 at 08:22 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> > >
> > > Was the load using dlopen() or simply an indirect link?
> Both Perl modules were dlopened. Each of the module linked to
> di
Dne 10.10.2016 v 16:29 Tomas Mraz napsal(a):
> On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>>> At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and the
>>> upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package from
>>> Fedora.
>>>
>>> We do not wan
On 2016-10-12, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On St, 2016-10-12 at 08:22 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>> Was the load using dlopen() or simply an indirect link?
>
Both Perl modules were dlopened. Each of the module linked to
different OpenSSL directly (DT_NEEDED).
> Also what I would expect to cras
On St, 2016-10-12 at 08:22 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-10-11 at 16:46 +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> >
> > On 2016-10-11, Remi Collet wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem possible to use a compat library (else we will
> > > very
> > > probably going to encounter issues
On St, 2016-10-12 at 01:23 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 16:29 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> >
> >
> > We will work on porting the dependent packages to the new API. If
> > by
> > some reasonable deadline there are still some packages that are not
> > dead by other reasons an
On Tue, 2016-10-11 at 16:46 +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2016-10-11, Remi Collet wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't seem possible to use a compat library (else we will very
> > probably going to encounter issues is both library versions are
> > used in
> > the same process, because of the numerous librar
On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 16:29 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> We will work on porting the dependent packages to the new API. If by
> some reasonable deadline there are still some packages that are not
> dead by other reasons and we are unable to port them we can add -devel
> to the compat package. Note
On Út, 2016-10-11 at 16:46 +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2016-10-11, Remi Collet wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't seem possible to use a compat library (else we will very
> > probably going to encounter issues is both library versions are
> > used in
> > the same process, because of the numerous librari
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Út, 2016-10-11 at 15:27 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Vít Ondruch
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Just FTR, I opened Ruby upstream ticket asking about the OpenSSL
>> > 1.1.0
>> > support:
>> >
>> > https://bugs.ruby-lan
On 2016-10-11, Remi Collet wrote:
> It doesn't seem possible to use a compat library (else we will very
> probably going to encounter issues is both library versions are used in
> the same process, because of the numerous libraries linked to PHP or its
> extensions)
>
That's true. I was just porti
On Út, 2016-10-11 at 15:27 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Vít Ondruch
> wrote:
> >
> > Just FTR, I opened Ruby upstream ticket asking about the OpenSSL
> > 1.1.0
> > support:
> >
> > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12830
> >
> > Not sure if you'll have also som
On Út, 2016-10-11 at 09:25 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 10/07/2016 06:49 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the openssl will be rebased in Rawhide to 1.1.0 on Monday. There
> > will
> > be also 1.0.2 compat package (compat-openssl10) so the dependencies
> > are
> > not broken and
On 10/07/2016 06:49 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the openssl will be rebased in Rawhide to 1.1.0 on Monday. There will
> be also 1.0.2 compat package (compat-openssl10) so the dependencies are
> not broken and Rawhide should be installable. Also things that do not
> depend on openssl should
mongo-c-driver 1.3.5 (current version in rawhide) is not compatible.
mongo-c-driver 1.4+ is
But pecl/mongodb 1.2.0 is not yet released (alpha3) and will require
both libbson 1.5.0 and mongo-c-driver 1.5.0 (only RC for now)
So, stalled for now.
Remi.
P.S.1: v1.4 drop a private lib, only used
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Just FTR, I opened Ruby upstream ticket asking about the OpenSSL 1.1.0
> support:
>
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12830
>
> Not sure if you'll have also some Fedora specific tracker
Would be nice to get tracking bug created on RHBZ,
Just FTR, I opened Ruby upstream ticket asking about the OpenSSL 1.1.0
support:
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12830
Not sure if you'll have also some Fedora specific tracker
Vít
Dne 10.10.2016 v 16:29 Tomas Mraz napsal(a):
> On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
Le 11/10/2016 à 13:09, Remi Collet a écrit :
> PHP version 7.0.x is not compatible with OpenSSL 1.1
But PHP 7.1 is
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16046780
So: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/php71
Remi.
___
devel mailing lis
Le 10/10/2016 à 16:29, Tomas Mraz a écrit :
> On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>>>
>>> At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and the
>>> upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package from
>>> Fedora.
>>>
>>> We do not wa
On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
> >
> > At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and the
> > upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package from
> > Fedora.
> >
> > We do not want to keep 1.0.2 devel around as that could m
On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and the
> > upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package from
> > Fedora.
> >
> > We do not want to keep 1.0.2 devel around as that could make
Tomas Mraz wrote:
> At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and the
> upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package from
> Fedora.
>
> We do not want to keep 1.0.2 devel around as that could make it to look
> like the 1.0.2 is still fully "supported" in Fedora an
26 matches
Mail list logo
