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 wit
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 al
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 b
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 o
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
> > > > u
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 module linked to
> di
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 wan
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 would expect to cras
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 going to encounter issues
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 an
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, because of the numerous librar
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. Note
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, because of the numerous librari
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
>> > support:
>> >
>> > https://bugs.ruby-lan
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)
>
That's true. I was just porti
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 if you'll have also som
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 and
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 should
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 used
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 bug created on RHBZ,
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:
>>
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 lis
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 wa
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 m
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
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 an
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 should be rebuildable without changes.
On the other hand du
27 matches
Mail list logo
