On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 02:06:33PM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote: > I’m sure Dmitry would be happy to do that if we as a community could > agree to no longer support OpenSSL ENGINEs, but it doesn’t seem that > this consensus exists in Fedora. This leaves us with deprecating > ENGINEs to give package maintainers a transition period. > > Should we instead cook up a patch that requires packages that still > want to continue use of engines to set an additional preprocessor > flag? With a patched openssl/engine.h we could probably make a > -DOPENSSL_NO_ENGINE_BUT_ACTUALLY_I_REALLY_STILL_WANT_TO_USE_THIS_DEPRECATED_FUNCTIONALITY > work. I don't think the Change process should be expected to find consensus, your incentive is only to find something which passes a FeSCO vote. But yeah, doing something like that would definitely get my +1: #ifndef I_ACKNOWLEDGE_THAT_ENGINES_WILL_BE_GONE_IN_FEDORA_41 #define OPENSSL_NO_ENGINE #endif ...and moving engine.h back the main -devel package. -- _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
