I just noticed this went to the the wrong mailling list. Not many people are going to see this on epel-devel-owners.
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 7:02 AM Stephen Smoogen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 09:46, Troy Dawson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> For those EPEL maintainers deciding on whether to take this or not. >> sscep looks like it is still maintained and active upstream.[1] >> Although the request bug listed here looks new, there is a much older >> duplicate bug requesting it. [2] >> sscep has been orphaned and retired in Fedora, around F31. The problem >> with orphaning is that it doesn't tell you why it was orphaned. >> > > Going from the emails I could find, it was the reason you outlined. At > that time it was needing a version of openssl we were no longer going to > support for security reasons. > > >> But if we try to build the latest Fedora version on epel8, it's easy to >> see that it requires compat-openssl10-devel. In other words, at the time, >> it wasn't compatible with the latest openssl. >> That has been fixed upstream. >> So whoever takes it will need to update the rpm to the latest upstream. >> >> I'm not trying to discourage anyone from taking this package. It's >> maintained upstream, so that's good. I'm just letting ya'll know what will >> be involved. >> >> > Troy >> >> [1] - https://github.com/certnanny/sscep >> [2] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741770 >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:00 AM Kiran Suresh <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear EPEL Community, >>> >>> >>> >>> Hope this email finds you well. I am writing to request your assistance >>> with SSCEP package for EL8, looking for a packagers who would like to >>> package and maintain SSCEP package on epel.. >>> >>> >>> >>> We would like to request your help in addressing this issue so that we >>> can proceed to utilize the package. If there are any packagers who would be >>> willing to take over the maintenance of SSCEP package, we would be grateful >>> for your support. >>> >>> >>> >>> We have submitted a bug for this request, and have not received any >>> response on this. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here are some additional details about package request: >>> >>> >>> >>> Bug ID: 2188992 >>> Link to Bug: 2188992 – Please branch and build sscep in epel8 >>> (redhat.com) <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2188992> >>> >>> Package name: sscep-0.6.1-5.20160525 >>> >>> Purpose: Simple SCEP client >>> >>> Package for EL7: sscep-0.6.1-5.20160525git2052ee1.el7.src.rpm >>> >>> >>> >>> If someone from the community could pick up this bug and work on it, we >>> would be more than happy to provide any additional information or >>> assistance needed to resolve the issue. We believe that this package would >>> be a valuable addition to the EPEL repository and would appreciate your >>> help in making it available to others. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to >>> hearing from you soon. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Kiran >>> >>> *Kiran Kumar Suresh* >>> >>> *TSS Infrastructure | *[email protected] *| Mobile: (203) 822 3689* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > -- > Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive > Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. > -- Ian MacClaren >
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
