On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 11:51 AM Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05. 08. 21 11:03, Sahana Prasad wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > As per the F36 schedule [1], rawhide starts F36 development on > 2021-08-10. > > I would like to bring in OpenSSL 3.0.0 [2] and the compat package [3] > (along > > with devel subpackage) into rawhide. > > > > I would like your opinion/suggestion on: > > 1. Merging it and building it directly in rawhide. This will make > OpenSSL 3.0.0 > > available by default for immediate use in rawhide. > > FTBFS bugs can be reported when there is a mass-rebuild as per [1] > > versus > > 2. Building it in a side-tag, adding all packages. Allowing the packages > to > > port and fix build failures > > on the side-tag and finally merge the side-tag. FTBFS bugs can be > reported > > immediately. > > > > I have a slight preference for option 1: > > > > 1. As rawhide enables us to try out stuff like this. > > 2. It is very early in the cycle to bring this change. > > 3. Many upstream packages have been ported (or are in the process of > porting) to > > OpenSSL 3.0.0 > > 4. Compat package (rebased to 1.1.1k version) is available with devel > files. > > > > Although option 2 sounds more organized. > > > > But I could be missing some information/details. It would be nice to > hear about > > the experiences in the past and the preferred method by the community. > > Is it not probable that when the rebuilds happen gradually, weird stuff > will > happen? > > E.g. when: > > - python links to libopenssl 3 > - libdnf or similar links to openssl 1.x > > An application, such as dnf, uses both. Can that be a problem? > > ---- > > To minimize unknown problems like this, I suggest to: > > 1. define a minimal acceptance criteria (e.g. "dnf works") > 2. test (1) in copr, do not open the side tag until verified there > 3. open a side tag > 4. build openssl 3 in it > 5. build as much packages linking to openssl in it as possible > 6. verify (1), improvise until it is a success > 7. merge the side tag > 8. rebuild "misfits" once again (packages that succeeded in (5) but > packagers > rebuilt them in regular rawhide while the side tag was open) > Thank you for these helpful steps Miro. I'll follow them. > > This is different from your proposed side tag solution because there is no > window left for "allowing the packages to port and fix build failures on > the > side-tag". Side tags are painful when opened for a long. > > IMHO This combines benefits of both of your solutions: > > - it is fast > - it is more or less atomic, sans the packages that FTBFS > Yes, I agree. Thank you, Regards, Sahana Prasad > > -- > Miro Hrončok > -- > Phone: +420777974800 > IRC: mhroncok > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
