RE: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Ben Beasley writes: > I support deprecating openssl1.1. We definitely shouldn’t be adding any > new packages that depend on it. > > However, dropping the -devel package is almost as drastic as simply > retiring the OpenSSL 1.1 package altogether. Grepping spec files for >

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 23. 06. 22 19:13, Miro Hrončok wrote: $ comm -23 <(repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires openssl1.1-devel | grep src$ | sort) <(repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires openssl-devel | grep src$ | sort) ... pypy-0:7.3.9-1.fc37.src

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 5:12 PM Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:54 PM Christian Heimes > wrote: > >> Here you are, have fun! >> >> >> https://github.com/python/cpython/compare/2.7...tiran:cpython:2.7.18-openssl3?expand=1 >> >> $ ./python -c "import sys; print

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 4:54 PM Christian Heimes wrote: > Here you are, have fun! > > > https://github.com/python/cpython/compare/2.7...tiran:cpython:2.7.18-openssl3?expand=1 > > $ ./python -c "import sys; print sys.version" > 2.7.18 (heads/2.7.18-openssl3:a2e3d7995ce, Jul 1 2022, 16:51:37) >

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Here you are, have fun! https://github.com/python/cpython/compare/2.7...tiran:cpython:2.7.18-openssl3?expand=1 $ ./python -c "import sys; print sys.version" 2.7.18 (heads/2.7.18-openssl3:a2e3d7995ce, Jul 1 2022, 16:51:37) [GCC 12.1.1 20220507 (Red Hat 12.1.1-1)] $ ./python

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

> Hi Richard, > porting Python 2.7 to openssl 3.0 doesn't really make sense to me. > > We ship Python 2.7 so that developers can test code that needs to work > on Python 2.7 in various deployments like old CentOS/RHEL/etc. Fedora > aims to be a developer-friendly distro and so we want to

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Charalampos Stratakis writes: > So I presume then that python2.7 in Debian works flawlessly with > OpenSSL 3.0.0, no regressions, no security issues and no ABI problems > right? I'm hearing hostility from you and I don't know why. From your sarcasm, I take it to mean that no, you haven't

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 01:52:34PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > On 6/30/22 13:11, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > > So I presume then that python2.7 in Debian works flawlessly with OpenSSL > > 3.0.0, no regressions, no security issues and no ABI problems right? > > What about stubbing out all

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 6/30/22 13:11, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > So I presume then that python2.7 in Debian works flawlessly with OpenSSL > 3.0.0, no regressions, no security issues and no ABI problems right? What about stubbing out all networking in Python 2.7? I believe that the only users of Python 2.7 in

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

So I presume then that python2.7 in Debian works flawlessly with OpenSSL 3.0.0, no regressions, no security issues and no ABI problems right? On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > Charalampos Stratakis writes: > > > Unfortunately that effort is moot, it's really not possible

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Charalampos Stratakis writes: > Unfortunately that effort is moot, it's really not possible to make > python2.7 compatible with OpenSSL 3.0.0, I mean even the latest Python > versions are not 100% compatible for various reasons. > > In trying to make it compatible there are also ABI changes

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

I agree (vigorously and in detail) with Fabio’s message. – Ben Beasley On Wed, Jun 29, 2022, at 12:42 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:46 PM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:27 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: >>> >>> Please don't remove the devel package if

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

And I would very much prefer to remedy the issue of having packages still relying on python2 rather than thinking about removing OpenSSL 1.1.1 that's still supported upstream and many packages depend on it. On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:29 PM Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > Unfortunately that effort

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Unfortunately that effort is moot, it's really not possible to make python2.7 compatible with OpenSSL 3.0.0, I mean even the latest Python versions are not 100% compatible for various reasons. In trying to make it compatible there are also ABI changes introduced, it's not only about having the

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 29. 06. 22 17:45, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: OK, it's not a problem to deprecate the package in the sense of https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ But we still want to

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 11:49:07 AM CDT Miro Hrončok wrote: > Now you are mixing the two kinda together in a weird way. The change is > called "deprecation" but is in fact "incomplete retirement". I agree. There seems to be a recent trend of Changes confusing the difference between

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 29. 06. 22 17:45, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: Dear Miro, On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:27 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 29. 06. 22 17:11, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > If I correctly follow the discussion, the biggest show-stopper is

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:46 PM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:27 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> >> Please don't remove the devel package if you aim for deprecation. As other >> have >> said, removing the devel package is essentially retirement, not deprecation. > > OK, it's

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Dear Miro, On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:27 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 29. 06. 22 17:11, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > If I correctly follow the discussion, the biggest show-stopper is Python > 2.*, > > which has some incomplete patches to deal with OpenSSL 3.0. > > We

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 29. 06. 22 17:11, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: Dear colleagues, If I correctly follow the discussion, the biggest show-stopper is Python 2.*, which has some incomplete patches to deal with OpenSSL 3.0. We would also need it in for Python 3.6 and pypys. If we assist you in moving these

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Dear colleagues, If I correctly follow the discussion, the biggest show-stopper is Python 2.*, which has some incomplete patches to deal with OpenSSL 3.0. If we assist you in moving these patches forward, can we get rid of the devel package and leave the compat package only for 3rd-party

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 27. 06. 22 13:27, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: == FAIL: test_openssl_version (test.test_ssl.BasicSocketTests) -- Traceback (most recent call last): File

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I somehow thought that loading the legacy provider would be the same as the LEGACY crypto policy, except just for Python 2.7 rather than for the entire system. It’s a common misconception. So common that I recently wrote a blog post to explain the difference:

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:15:01AM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote: > Hi, > > Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 09:11:29AM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > >>On 27/06/2022 08:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>>On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: >

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Hi, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 09:11:29AM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: On 27/06/2022 08:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: Dear Richard, If the only problem is legacy (and unsafe) ciphersuites, loading the

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 27/06/2022 10:02, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 09:11:29AM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: On 27/06/2022 08:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: Dear Richard, If the only problem is legacy (and unsafe) ciphersuites,

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 09:11:29AM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 27/06/2022 08:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > >>Dear Richard, > >> > >>If the only problem is legacy (and unsafe) ciphersuites, loading the legacy > >>provider

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 27/06/2022 08:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: Dear Richard, If the only problem is legacy (and unsafe) ciphersuites, loading the legacy provider will solve this problem. Any clues on how to do that?

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > Dear Richard, > > If the only problem is legacy (and unsafe) ciphersuites, loading the legacy > provider will solve this problem. Any clues on how to do that? Rich. > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 1:11 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Hi, Ben Beasley writes: > However, dropping the -devel package is almost as drastic as simply > retiring the OpenSSL 1.1 package altogether. Grepping spec files for > 'BuildRequires:.*openssl1' turns up the following packages that would > immediately FTBFS: > ... > - dotnet3.1 > ... This

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Jun 24, 2022 1:59:40 PM Jason Tibbitts : > When a package is deprecated, the intent is that no new dependencies on > any deprecated package would appear in the distribution, either by new > packages or from existing packages adding dependencies.  Of course, I > don't know what actually checks

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 6/23/22 08:51, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 23. 06. 22 11:43, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> I think this is the correct incantation ... >> >> # dnf repoquery --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=rawhide-source --arch=src >> --whatrequires openssl1.1-devel >> Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:31 ago on

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

> Felix Schwarz writes: > imho removing the devel packages is basically the same as removing > openssl1.1 entirely. To me the idea of "deprecation" is to warn users > that something is going away WITHOUT removing functionality > immediately. I just wanted to note, since I haven't noticed it

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

I support deprecating openssl1.1. We definitely shouldn’t be adding any new packages that depend on it. However, dropping the -devel package is almost as drastic as simply retiring the OpenSSL 1.1 package altogether. Grepping spec files for 'BuildRequires:.*openssl1' turns up the following

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 24. 06. 22 17:39, Simo Sorce wrote: Not forever, just until Python 2.7 is removed :D Seriously thou, my proposal is: - deprecate it now - announce it goes away when RHEL 8 maintenance support ends Following the guidelines for deprecated packages:

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 5:14 AM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:02 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> >> On 22. 06. 22 21:05, Vipul Siddharth wrote: >> > We are going to deprecate openssl1.1 package, stop shipping the >> > corresponding devel package, and stop respecting

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Fri, 2022-06-24 at 11:42 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 24. 06. 22 11:23, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:20 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:13:13AM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > >

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 02:06:14PM +0200, Tomáš Orsava wrote: > Hi Richard, > porting Python 2.7 to openssl 3.0 doesn't really make sense to me. > > We ship Python 2.7 so that developers can test code that needs to work on > Python 2.7 in various deployments like old CentOS/RHEL/etc. Fedora aims

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Hi Richard, porting Python 2.7 to openssl 3.0 doesn't really make sense to me. We ship Python 2.7 so that developers can test code that needs to work on Python 2.7 in various deployments like old CentOS/RHEL/etc. Fedora aims to be a developer-friendly distro and so we want to provide the

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 01:37:16PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 24. 06. 22 13:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 10:43:45AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>python2.7-0:2.7.18-22.fc37.src > > > >Vaguely seeing if it's feasible to backport the OpenSSL 3 support to >

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 24. 06. 22 13:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 10:43:45AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: python2.7-0:2.7.18-22.fc37.src Vaguely seeing if it's feasible to backport the OpenSSL 3 support to Python 2.7. This branch gets quite far:

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Dear Richard, If the only problem is legacy (and unsafe) ciphersuites, loading the legacy provider will solve this problem. On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 1:11 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 10:43:45AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > python2.7-0:2.7.18-22.fc37.src > >

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 10:43:45AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > python2.7-0:2.7.18-22.fc37.src Vaguely seeing if it's feasible to backport the OpenSSL 3 support to Python 2.7. This branch gets quite far: https://github.com/rwmjones/cpython/tree/python-2.7-openssl-3 Only one test fails,

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 24. 06. 22 11:23, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:20 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:13:13AM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:02 PM Miro Hrončok mailto:mhron...@redhat.com>>

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Am 24.06.22 um 11:27 schrieb Florian Weimer: * Felix Schwarz: Are these Python 2.7 dependencies only used at build time? In that case Fedora could maybe announce that openssl1.1 might not get the full security suport so the burden for openssl1.1 packagers is lower without removing the

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Am 24.06.22 um 11:23 schrieb Dmitry Belyavskiy: What I'm afraid of is that if we just declare the deprecation, we will stay with this package forever. Well, RHEL 7 maintenance support 2 phase ends in June 2024. I'd expect that we should be able to drop Python 2.7 from Fedora at that point at

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 24. 06. 22 11:27, Florian Weimer wrote: * Felix Schwarz: Are these Python 2.7 dependencies only used at build time? In that case Fedora could maybe announce that openssl1.1 might not get the full security suport so the burden for openssl1.1 packagers is lower without removing the

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

* Felix Schwarz: > Are these Python 2.7 dependencies only used at build time? In that > case Fedora could maybe announce that openssl1.1 might not get the > full security suport so the burden for openssl1.1 packagers is lower > without removing the functionality? I'm pretty sure it's used for

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:20 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:13:13AM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:02 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: > > > > > On 22. 06. 22 21:05, Vipul Siddharth wrote: > > > > We are going to deprecate openssl1.1 package,

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:13:13AM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:02 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > On 22. 06. 22 21:05, Vipul Siddharth wrote: > > > We are going to deprecate openssl1.1 package, stop shipping the > > > corresponding devel package, and stop respecting

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Am 24.06.22 um 11:13 schrieb Dmitry Belyavskiy: I'm not sure that if we don't remove the devel package, we will provide strong enough motivation to get rid of the deprecating packages. imho removing the devel packages is basically the same as removing openssl1.1 entirely. To me the idea of

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 24. 06. 22 11:13, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:02 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 22. 06. 22 21:05, Vipul Siddharth wrote: > We are going to deprecate openssl1.1 package, stop shipping the > corresponding devel package, and stop

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:02 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22. 06. 22 21:05, Vipul Siddharth wrote: > > We are going to deprecate openssl1.1 package, stop shipping the > > corresponding devel package, and stop respecting crypto policies in > > openssl1.1 package itself. > > +1 to deprecating it >

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:09 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > That's complicated. . And, while I am sure it could be derived, it seems to me, as previously stated, that the python's turn into the most significant dependency chain. I am all for deprecating openssl 1.1, and for package reviews

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 23. 06. 22 19:58, Maxwell G wrote: Jun 23, 2022 12:14:26 PM Miro Hrončok : Alrighty, in that case: $ comm -23 <(repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires openssl1.1-devel | grep src$ | sort) <(repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires openssl-devel | grep src$ |

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Jun 23, 2022 12:14:26 PM Miro Hrončok : > Alrighty, in that case: > > $ comm -23 <(repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires > openssl1.1-devel | grep src$ | sort) <(repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} > --whatrequires openssl-devel | grep src$ | sort) >

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 23. 06. 22 16:37, Jerry James wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:52 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: Not quite the right incantation, because it leaves out anything that does not BuildRequire explicitly the string openssl1.1-devel but rather some of its virtual provides. Here you go: $ repoquery -q

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:52 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Not quite the right incantation, because it leaves out anything that does not > BuildRequire explicitly the string openssl1.1-devel but rather some of its > virtual provides. Here you go: > > $ repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source}

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 23. 06. 22 11:43, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I think this is the correct incantation ... # dnf repoquery --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires openssl1.1-devel Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:31 ago on Thu 23 Jun 2022 10:37:46 BST.

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:17:10AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > Is removing the -devel package the right approach ? It will > certainly stop new packages using it, but when we come to do the > next mass rebuild, it will break any existing usage too. What > existing packages in the distro

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:35:28AM +0530, Vipul Siddharth wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateOpensslCompat > > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes > process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive > community feedback. This

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 22. 06. 22 21:05, Vipul Siddharth wrote: We are going to deprecate openssl1.1 package, stop shipping the corresponding devel package, and stop respecting crypto policies in openssl1.1 package itself. +1 to deprecating it -1 to stop shipping the devel package, this would mean we cannot

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > On 6/22/22 15:05, Vipul Siddharth wrote: >> == Benefit to Fedora == >> This proposal ensures than no new packages in Fedora will rely on the >> deprecated OpenSSL version that will cause an overall increase of >> security/stability, and will reduce the amount of old

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 6/22/22 15:05, Vipul Siddharth wrote: == Benefit to Fedora == This proposal ensures than no new packages in Fedora will rely on the deprecated OpenSSL version that will cause an overall increase of security/stability, and will reduce the amount of old packages relying on OpenSSL 1.1 series.

F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateOpensslCompat This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering

F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateOpensslCompat This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering