On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:06 PM Robert Moskowitz <rgm(a)htt-consult.com> wrote:
Adam,
What is the position on openSSL 1.1.1?
The openSSL team has targeted Sept 11 as the release date, and I have
not seen any other word on the user list. Of course there may be
different discussion elsewhere.
For all the features of TLS 1.3, you want openSSL 1.1.1.
Speaking of TLS 1.3, I don't know what else needs to be done for support
of it, but there is an intentional change in versions from the draft to
the RFC...
All of the above is up to the openssl maintainer, it would still be
available in updates-testing for use anyway.
> Disclaimer: I have a personal need of 1.1.1, as the PR that addressed
> my problems with creating EDDSA certs did not make the pre9 version, but
> it is in the master now.
>
> Bob
>
> On 9/7/18 8:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hi folks! As we've only got a week to go for Beta, here's an update on
> > blocker bug status.
> >
> > tl;dr action summary
> > ====================
> >
> > Accepted blockers
> > -----------------
> >
> > 1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1582524
> > ACTION: QA / reporter to verify whether fixed in 3.2.0-2.fc29
> >
> > 2.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596540
> > ACTION: dnf team to fix bug and send out update
> >
> > 3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616167
> > ACTION: FESCo to decide on how much fixing is needed
> >
> > 4.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615969
> > ACTION: nirik to build for for f29 and edit update
> >
> > 5.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572916
> > ACTION: kernel team to report whether anything still needed
> >
> > Proposed blockers
> > -----------------
> >
> > 1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624972
> > ACTION: blocker reviewers to vote on status, QA to verify fix
> >
> > 2.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1626413
> > ACTION: bcl to ensure fix is ready in case of need
> >
> > 3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616269
> > ACTION: adamw to send out call-for-testing mail
> >
> > Bug-by-bug detail
> > =================
> >
> > Accepted blockers
> > -----------------
> >
> > 1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1582524 - dnf - POST
> > dnf doesn't follow default profile for an enabled non-default stream
> >
> > This is reported to be fixed in 3.3.0, but I'm not 100% sure if it's
> > fixed in 3.2.0-2.fc29, the build currently in F29. I've asked for
> > clarification in the bug.
> >
> > 2.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596540 - dnf - ASSIGNED
> > RuntimeError: C++ std::exception: Exec failed: no such table:
main.trans_cmdline
> >
> > This is one of several crasher bugs reported with DNF 3+ which seem to
> > relate to the history database. This one has a clear reproducer in
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596540#c30 , and dmach
> > committed to a fix there. We are waiting on that fix.
> >
> > 3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616167 - dnf - NEW
> > dnf doesn't record modular metadata in a local database
> >
> > This one was referred to FESCo:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1974 . It
> > will be discussed on Monday, and a decision made about to what extent
> > it needs to be addressed for Beta and/or Final.
> >
> > 4.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615969 - grub2 - VERIFIED
> > AArch64 - Error when booting "error: out of memory."
> >
> > This was fixed by grub2-2.02-52.fc29, but that build is the one which
> > broke many x86_64 UEFI installs and thus was unpushed. We need a new
> > grub2 build which retains the fix for this bug and also fixes the
> > x86_64 UEFI bug. As pjones is apparently away ATM, I have asked nirik
> > if he can do this.
> >
> > 5.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572916 - kernel - NEW
> > kernel after 4.17.0-0.rc2.git0.1.fc29 waits for random entropy on boot
> >
> > This one's been sitting on the blocker list a long time, I'm not
> > sure if anything more is needed here. I have asked the kernel folks for
> > an update.
> >
> > Proposed blockers
> > -----------------
> >
> > 1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624972 - lightdm - MODIFIED
> > No GUI desktop
> >
> > This looks like a clear blocker (Xfce ARM image failing to boot - Xfce
> > is the blocking desktop on 32-bit ARM), but it also seems like a
> > probable fix has been identified and we only need to push it.
> >
> > 2.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1626413 - lorax - NEW
> > Add dependency on librepo
> >
> > It seems that lorax has a librepo dep it does not express, but this was
> > hidden by dnf depending on librepo; apparently newer dnf builds no
> > longer do, so lorax needs to express the dependency. This is
> > technically not a blocker so long as the newer dnf builds aren't
> > actually in stable themselves, but as we're likely to need one to fix
> > the accepted DNF blockers, we'll want to have the lorax fix ready to
> > go.
> >
> > 3.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616269 - xorg-x11-server - NEW
> > [abrt] xorg-x11-server-Xwayland: OsLookupColor(): Display server crashed
> >
> > This is a graphical environment crash which is clearly hardware-
> > dependent to some degree. We need to find out how many other folks are
> > running into it in order to decide whether it's a blocker. I will send
> > out a call-for-testing email about this one soon.
> >
> > Thanks folks!
> _______________________________________________
> test mailing list -- test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org