On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 13:17, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 14:07, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 1:35 PM Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This recent commit [1] in rawhide moves the engine API to a
>>> openssl-devel-engine
On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 02:06:33PM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
> I’m sure Dmitry would be happy to do that if we as a community could
> agree to no longer support OpenSSL ENGINEs, but it doesn’t seem that
> this consensus exists in Fedora. This leaves us with deprecating
> ENGINEs to give
Hi,
> On 5. Jul 2024, at 14:24, Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> I wonder if it would be possible (of course it is technically possible,
> more like how hard it would be) to make the OpenSSL devel package
> conditionally define OPENSSL_NO_ENGINE if another package is
> not installed. I can think of at
On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 11:10:08AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 02:05:38PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> > In the long-term it would be better to provide a patch fixing build of the
> > package. Probably adding -DOPENSSL_NO_ENGINE to build flags will work.
> > Engines are
Hi,
> On 5. Jul 2024, at 12:10, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 02:05:38PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
>> In the long-term it would be better to provide a patch fixing build of the
>> package. Probably adding -DOPENSSL_NO_ENGINE to build flags will work.
>> Engines are
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 02:05:38PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> In the long-term it would be better to provide a patch fixing build of the
> package. Probably adding -DOPENSSL_NO_ENGINE to build flags will work.
> Engines are deprecated. You should not use engines and should migrate to
>
FYI, builds with Boost Asio can be fixed by adding:
%global _preprocessor_defines %{_preprocessor_defines} -DOPENSSL_NO_ENGINE
Iñaki
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 14:15, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 14:07, Dmitry Belyavskiy
> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 14:07, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 1:35 PM Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This recent commit [1] in rawhide moves the engine API to a
>> openssl-devel-engine subpackage following [2] (BTW this change announced
>> that it would
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 1:35 PM Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This recent commit [1] in rawhide moves the engine API to a
> openssl-devel-engine subpackage following [2] (BTW this change announced
> that it would be openssl-engine-devel instead, but that's not the point).
> I'm
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 at 13:42, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 02 July 2024 at 13:34, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> [...]
> > One major concern is that I see this in a package that does **not** use
> the
> > engine API:
> >
> >
On Tuesday, 02 July 2024 at 13:34, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
[...]
> One major concern is that I see this in a package that does **not** use the
> engine API:
>
> /usr/include/boost/asio/ssl/detail/openssl_types.hpp:26:11: fatal error:
> openssl/engine.h: No such file or directory
>26 | # include
>
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 7:35 AM Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This recent commit [1] in rawhide moves the engine API to a
> openssl-devel-engine subpackage following [2] (BTW this change announced that
> it would be openssl-engine-devel instead, but that's not the point). I'm
> surprised that
Hi,
This recent commit [1] in rawhide moves the engine API to a
openssl-devel-engine subpackage following [2] (BTW this change announced
that it would be openssl-engine-devel instead, but that's not the point).
I'm surprised that FESCo approved this change without any analysis of the
impact and
13 matches
Mail list logo
