On Fri, 2016-07-22 at 16:48 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On Pá, 2016-07-22 at 10:24 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-07-22 at 10:21 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2016-07-22 at 17:17 +0300, Antti Järvinen wrote: > > > > > > > > Tomas Mraz writes: > > > > > for anybody insterested in testing and/or porting applications > > > > to the > > > > > new OpenSSL 1.1.0 API I've prepared a COPR repository: > > > > > > > > Strongly advised, OpenSSL 1.1 API changes slightly compared to > > > > 1.0 and > > > > at least in debian the list of packages not compiling any more > > > > was rather > > > > impressive, see > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=827061 > > > > and I'd expect something similar in other distributions too. > > > > Mostly > > > > this is head-ache of upstreams but it might be good manners to > > > > file > > > > upstream error tickets early :) > > > Second, I was given a heads up about failing packages by an Ubuntu > > > maintainer of upstream projects of mine, and I had to change every > > > single one of them. I haven't rebuild all of them yet for Fedora > > > either > > > because the changes do not work at run time, I have to wait until > > > Feodra > > > Rawhide gets 1.1.0 anyway. > > > > > > So please land this as early as possible in Fedora as it will > > > require to > > Actually , given how disruptive this is going to be we may want to > > think > > of creating a separate tag and rebuild the majority of core packages > > that break there and only then tag it at once in rawhide, or rawhide > > user experience will be miserable until all package maintainers get > > around to fix it. > > My current plan (might be changed) is to: > > 1. Fill Fedora Change proposal for Fedora 26 very early. > > 2. Add compat 1.0.2 package which would be used by 3rd party > applications and also temporarily by applications that are not yet > ported to the new API. However the current plan is to not provide > -devel subpackage for 1.0.2 compat packages so if you needed to rebuild > something on rawhide you would have to fix the build issues with the > new openssl. > > The tag should not be strictly necessary and I'd like to avoid it as > rawhide with the compat package should be installable and relatively > usable. Only the developers that use OpenSSL API calls would have to > patch their code. I am concerned about a compat package because there are a lot of components lining to openssl often libraries or modules, from different source RPMS. So we incur the risk of getting a binary to link with both version via modules/library dependencies and that would cause issues (probably crashes, or perhaps bad behavior) only at runtime due to symbol aliasing between the two versions. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
