On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 8:38 AM Michel Alexandre Salim < michel@michel-slm.name> wrote:
On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 19:40 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 7:38 PM Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name wrote:
Hi all,
Per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007031 -- openssl 3.x won't be added to RHEL 8, while updated packages are starting to need it.
It thus seems to be a good candidate for EPEL; the question is - are we allowed to maintain openssl3-* packages from the openssl srpm repo, or do we need to explicitly have an epel8-only (possibly F35 and F34 too, as they also don't have openssl3) 'openssl3' srpm repo?
You'll need an openssl3 SRPM repo, but you could have commits synced from openssl from CentOS Stream 9.
Ah, thanks. Is there a written policy disallowing renaming the package in the spec like I did? (I sense it might not be fully legitimate, but couldn't find anything).
If I remember right, the spec file name needs to be in the format <dist-git-repo-name>.spec Thus, the spec file needs to be openssl3.spec, and thus you aren't really renaming it. :)
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about the spec file naming, but I had to do that for my various <package>-epel spec file.
Between syncing with Rawhide/Fedora and syncing with CS9, this will be interesting. CS9 *does* have openssl 3.x and we generally don't want to change this package too much, so if merging from a different package is needed for maintenance anyway, maybe CS9 is the better 'upstream' to use.
Will check at the EPEL meeting today before proceeding, thanks!