On St, 2016-10-12 at 12:40 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On St, 2016-10-12 at 10:28 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > But what about stable versions of libraries applications? For
> > example,
> > in current Rawhide, you won't be able to build any stable Ruby
> > version
> > downloaded as tarball without the compat-openssl-devel. And it is
> > question, if upstream will be able to backport the OpenSSL 1.1.0
> > support
> > into stable Ruby versions . Not mentioning all the older Ruby
> > versions which are unsupported, but up until now, you could build
> > them
> > on your own (actually it should be possible to disable the OpenSSL
> > support, but that is not common scenario).
> > I personally don't care much about this scenario, but I am pretty
> > sure
> > that others might care more ....
> Yes, I am getting more and more inclined to ship compat-openssl10-
> devel. However I will make it conflicting with openssl-devel and its
> use for Fedora packages should be strongly discouraged.
So I've added compat-openssl10-devel subpackage to the compat-openssl10
package. Please use it only in case all of these three conditions are
1. port of your dependent package is not straightforward
2. upstream does not work on the port
3. you are not able to port it yourself
Please also in that case fill a bug against your package and make it
block the FTBFS with OpenSSL1.1.0 tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.
If the port should be straightforward (i.e. the package does not
contain language bindings for OpenSSL, it is not an OpenSSL engine, and
it is not using OpenSSL internals deeply) but you do not have time to
work on it, please also fill the FTBFS bug and add me to CC so I can
work on the patch.
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
(You'll never know whether the road is wrong though.)
devel mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org