Hello, On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Elio Maldonado Batiz <emaldona@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/18/2013 06:54 PM, Elio Maldonado Batiz wrote: >> >> On 10/18/2013 12:55 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Eric H. Christensen >>> <sparks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Information on this fix is in Bugzilla[1]. >>> >>> There are >80 packages affected, would it be possible to give the >>> owners a shorter (and authoritative[1]) version, instead of asking >>> each maintainer to fish the information out of a bug with 135 >>> comments? >>> >>> * Can I test my package right now, before the NSS change lands? How? >>> * If I need a workaround, what is the workaround? (Do I have to set >>> an environment variable, or is there a way to do it in the API? If I >>> do have to set an environment variable, do I have to do it at the very >>> start before initializing NSS? Before opening the specific socket?, >> >> >> The update has been now to f20 >> updates-testing.https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19396/nss-3.15.2-2.fc20 >> I could hold it back very shortly give folks time but we really would like >> this during beta so we get feedback. >> >> NSS checks the value of the SSL_CBC_RANDOM_IV_SSL variable and you could >> programmatically set it to 0 with setenv,for example [1]. <snip> >> There are >80 packages affected, would it be possible to give the > It would useful if the list was available. (repoquery --whatrequires nss). > Could those package owners be > notified directly? That seems useful to me, yes. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
