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?
The former would be easier to maintain as we can just rebase changes from Rawhide; the latter can be done but a bit trickier (we can document how to configure the openssl srpm repo to be a remote and merge changes).
It's surprisingly easy to have openssl3-* generated from openssl.spec - - but I want to check first to make sure this is OK before addressing some minor issues (e.g. I've not added conflicts with the original packages)
See the proof of concept, which builds fine on EPEL8: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/salimma/rpms/openssl/c/712fbe3ddd4ad02e55...
One worry I have is, epel* branches are normally blocked for packages that are part of RHEL. Would requesting an epel8 branch for openssl, to host an openssl.spec that would generate openssl3-* binary packages, be mistaken for an attempt to have openssl binary packages overriding the RHEL ones?
If we think this is OK, I'll finish up the work and open a PR against Rawhide; if the maintainers object, the changes are hopefully minimal enough we can just merge in changes going forward.
Thanks,