Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: OpenSSL 3.0
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 10:38 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 07. 04. 20 23:31, Ben Cotton wrote:
> * Proposal owners: Provide a compat-openssl11 package, identify
> dependent packages, provide the rebased openssl package, work with
> dependent package owners on rebuilds.
Thanks for doing this.
Will compat-openssl11-devel be provided? For how long you intent to
support it?
I originally thought that we might be able to do without the -devel
subpackage as there are the usual problems with it - such as it being
conflicting with the primary openssl-devel package and also potential
for unstability in applications that have loaded both old and new
OpenSSL into a single process.
E.g. I don't see Python 2 ever supporting openssl 3, that's
why I'm
asking.
The question is what does this really mean - in theory at least the API
should be fully backwards compatible so what builds against openssl
1.1.1 should build against openssl 3. Of course testcases that expect
bug-for-bug compatibility might not work as expected.
But yeah I am not against providing compat-openssl11-devel for a few
releases at least. And I can orphan the package later if someone else
wants to maintain it further then.
(Replied this sooner, but accidentally to devel-announce.)
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Tomáš Mráz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
[You'll know whether the road is wrong if you carefully listen to your
conscience.]