On Wed, 2020-09-16 at 12:28 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 19:33 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 15. 09. 20 19:26, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > What is more important? Consistency between those two compat > > > packages > > > or strictly following the naming rules for the new package? > > > > Why not both? I.e. renaming compat-openssl10 to openssl1.0 while > > packaging > > openssl1.1? > > > > Note that I've always considered the compat-openssl10 name quite > > confusing, so I > > would prefer the new one to be openssl1.1 (even if you don't rnemae > > the old one). > > I do not think it is worth it to rename the old one and I am not even > maintainer of it in Fedora anymore. It should be dropped ASAP as it is > release without upstream support. > > So OK, I'll use openssl1.1 for the new one. Indeed compat-openssl10 really should go. If there are still packages depending on it they should be ported or dropped at this point. Openssl1.0.2 is unmaintained upstream and only critical security fixes are done in RHEL. But the team that handles them does not own the Fedora package anymore. OpenSSL 1.0 does not support things lie TLS 1.3 or system-wide crypto policies. Frankly at this point it is just a liability to continue offering it. I'll file a bugzilla to ask to retire it from rawhide. Simo. -- Simo Sorce RHEL Crypto Team Red Hat, Inc _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
