[Folks, please remove devel-announce from CC when replying.] On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 01:15:27PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Anybody who is still relying on engines needs to start > > looking at a transition, the earlier the better. At best, > > you’re buying yourself a year by rejecting this change. > > The deprecation is a clear indicator for the transition, and these repeated > change proposals have given notice to maintainers. > > I'm still not finding it compelling to prematurely force the breakage on > people while upstream is still shipping this functionality. Right now the > benefits to Fedora seem to be minimal, with clear breakage & disruption > potential. > > Once OpenSSSL 4 ships, then the benefits to Fedora to update to that are > compelling, despite any potential breakage, so the balance changes and I > would support that. Yeah. One year extra for the transition seems important. FreeIPA is one example: right now dropping engine support would disrupt functionality, but once they finish the update, it'll be a noop. By doing this in Fedora earlier than upstream does it, we would be creating a lot of additional pain and disruption for ourselves. 'fedrq wr -b rawhide openssl-devel-engine | wc -l' says 62. If the openssl maintainers have some spare cycles, they should help to bring this number down. Ripping out the carpet from underneath so many packages would be very disruptive. Zbyszek -- _______________________________________________ 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
