just a small update: This is going to be a little more complicated and I suggest we tackle this at the beginning of next year. I got some very helpful feedback from our community (Thanks a lot loqs). * We might be able to drop version 1.0 (which is no longer maintained by upstream anyway). packages that only work with 1.0 should be dropped imho. * We are going to need to provide 1.1 for a couple of packages (hopefully not for long) * We are going to have to solve the bootstrap issue with pacman. I guess by either linking it statically, make it depend on the 1.1 package at first
Greetings, Pierre On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 10:32 AM Pierre Schmitz <pie...@archlinux.de> wrote: > > Hi Jelle, (also forwarding to dev-public) > > definitely yes, OpenSSL 3.0 is on my wish list! :-) > > I did not want to jump on it at day one though. Even the last minor > updates were quite painful and we still have packages requiring > version 1.0 and are still not compatible with 1.1. > > While they claim that most packages should work with a recompile, it > would be nice to actually know which packages are not compatible. This > should help whether we need another compatibility package are would be > able to just replace openssl 1.1 with version 3. > > I know about foutrelis' awesome rebuilder script, but I wonder if we > have something similar that I just could run for half a day to get an > idea which package would break and which wont? Like a dry run that > wont commit anything. If no such thing exists yet, I might have a look > myself. > > Greetings, > > Pierre > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 9:14 PM Jelle van der Waa <je...@vdwaa.nl> wrote: > > > > Hi Pierre, > > > > Shall we start an openssl 3.0 rebuild soon? Fedora/Debian/Alpine seens > > to have already started. > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenSSL3.0 > > > > Greetings, > > > > Jelle > > > > -- > Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
