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!