Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

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

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On St, 2016-10-12 at 15:33 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On St, 2016-10-12 at 14:39 +0200, Kamil Dudka wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 07, 2016 14:49:49 Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > the openssl will be rebased in Rawhide to 1.1.0 on Monday. There > > > will > > > be

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On St, 2016-10-12 at 14:39 +0200, Kamil Dudka wrote: > On Friday, October 07, 2016 14:49:49 Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > the openssl will be rebased in Rawhide to 1.1.0 on Monday. There > > will > > be also 1.0.2 compat package (compat-openssl10) so the dependencies > > are > > not

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On Friday, October 07, 2016 14:49:49 Tomas Mraz wrote: > Hi all, > > the openssl will be rebased in Rawhide to 1.1.0 on Monday. There will > be also 1.0.2 compat package (compat-openssl10) so the dependencies are > not broken and Rawhide should be installable. Also things that do not > depend on

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On St, 2016-10-12 at 10:28 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 10.10.2016 v 16:29 Tomas Mraz napsal(a): > > > > On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > > > Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > > > > > > At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and > > > > the > > > >

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On St, 2016-10-12 at 08:21 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2016-10-12, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > > On St, 2016-10-12 at 08:22 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > > > > > Was the load using dlopen() or simply an indirect link? > Both Perl modules were dlopened. Each of the

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

Dne 10.10.2016 v 16:29 Tomas Mraz napsal(a): > On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Tomas Mraz wrote: >>> At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and the >>> upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package from >>> Fedora. >>> >>> We do not

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On 2016-10-12, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On St, 2016-10-12 at 08:22 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: >> Was the load using dlopen() or simply an indirect link? > Both Perl modules were dlopened. Each of the module linked to different OpenSSL directly (DT_NEEDED). > Also what I

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On St, 2016-10-12 at 08:22 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > On Tue, 2016-10-11 at 16:46 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > On 2016-10-11, Remi Collet wrote: > > > > > > > > > It doesn't seem possible to use a compat library (else we will > > > very > > > probably

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On St, 2016-10-12 at 01:23 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 16:29 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > > > > We will work on porting the dependent packages to the new API. If > > by > > some reasonable deadline there are still some packages that are not > > dead by other reasons

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On Tue, 2016-10-11 at 16:46 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2016-10-11, Remi Collet wrote: > > > > It doesn't seem possible to use a compat library (else we will very > > probably going to encounter issues is both library versions are > > used in > > the same process,

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On Mon, 2016-10-10 at 16:29 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > We will work on porting the dependent packages to the new API. If by > some reasonable deadline there are still some packages that are not > dead by other reasons and we are unable to port them we can add -devel > to the compat package.

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On Út, 2016-10-11 at 16:46 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2016-10-11, Remi Collet wrote: > > > > It doesn't seem possible to use a compat library (else we will very > > probably going to encounter issues is both library versions are > > used in > > the same process,

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On Út, 2016-10-11 at 15:27 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Vít Ondruch >> wrote: >> > >> > Just FTR, I opened Ruby upstream ticket asking about the OpenSSL >> > 1.1.0 >> >

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On 2016-10-11, Remi Collet wrote: > It doesn't seem possible to use a compat library (else we will very > probably going to encounter issues is both library versions are used in > the same process, because of the numerous libraries linked to PHP or its > extensions) >

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On Út, 2016-10-11 at 15:27 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Vít Ondruch > wrote: > > > > Just FTR, I opened Ruby upstream ticket asking about the OpenSSL > > 1.1.0 > > support: > > > > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12830 > > > > Not sure

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On Út, 2016-10-11 at 09:25 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 10/07/2016 06:49 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > the openssl will be rebased in Rawhide to 1.1.0 on Monday. There > > will > > be also 1.0.2 compat package (compat-openssl10) so the dependencies > > are > > not broken

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On 10/07/2016 06:49 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote: > Hi all, > > the openssl will be rebased in Rawhide to 1.1.0 on Monday. There will > be also 1.0.2 compat package (compat-openssl10) so the dependencies are > not broken and Rawhide should be installable. Also things that do not > depend on openssl

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

mongo-c-driver 1.3.5 (current version in rawhide) is not compatible. mongo-c-driver 1.4+ is But pecl/mongodb 1.2.0 is not yet released (alpha3) and will require both libbson 1.5.0 and mongo-c-driver 1.5.0 (only RC for now) So, stalled for now. Remi. P.S.1: v1.4 drop a private lib, only

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Just FTR, I opened Ruby upstream ticket asking about the OpenSSL 1.1.0 > support: > > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12830 > > Not sure if you'll have also some Fedora specific tracker Would be nice to get tracking

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

Just FTR, I opened Ruby upstream ticket asking about the OpenSSL 1.1.0 support: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12830 Not sure if you'll have also some Fedora specific tracker Vít Dne 10.10.2016 v 16:29 Tomas Mraz napsal(a): > On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

Le 11/10/2016 à 13:09, Remi Collet a écrit : > PHP version 7.0.x is not compatible with OpenSSL 1.1 But PHP 7.1 is http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16046780 So: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/php71 Remi. ___ devel mailing

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

Le 10/10/2016 à 16:29, Tomas Mraz a écrit : > On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Tomas Mraz wrote: >>> >>> At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and the >>> upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package from >>> Fedora. >>> >>> We do not

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On So, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Tomas Mraz wrote: > > > > At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and the > > upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package from > > Fedora. > > > > We do not want to keep 1.0.2 devel around as that could

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Tomas Mraz wrote: > > At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and the > > upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package from > > Fedora. > > > > We do not want to keep 1.0.2 devel around as that could make

Re: OpenSSL 1.1.0 in Rawhide very soon

Tomas Mraz wrote: > At worst if the patching of a package is highly non-trivial and the > upstream is not responsive we might have to drop the package from > Fedora. > > We do not want to keep 1.0.2 devel around as that could make it to look > like the 1.0.2 is still fully "supported" in Fedora