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(a)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).
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!
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@michel-slm.name