On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 10:24:34PM +0100, Pierre Schmitz via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> * Retiring OpenSSL 1.0 will take place here:
> https://archlinux.org/todo/openssl-10-retirement/ This wont affect the 1.1 ->
> 3.0 transition though.
I have now completed this todo and removed openssl-1.0 from
Alright, I have updated openssl-1.1 (the one in staging) to the latest
version and both include libprovides now. In addition to this
openssl-1.1 provides openssl=1.1.1
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 7:01 PM Luna Jernberg wrote:
>
> 1.1.1r is just bugfixes and no critical security fix as in the 3.0x serie
On 2022-11-01 18:27:23 (+0100), Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> I updated to 3.0.7 in staging. I had libprovides in my branch. Do you
> guys think this might be handy to define versioned dependencies when
> we have potentially three different openssl verions to maintain?
>
> provides=('libcrypto.so' 'libs
Thanks a lot for pushing this forward!
I updated to 3.0.7 in staging. I had libprovides in my branch. Do you
guys think this might be handy to define versioned dependencies when
we have potentially three different openssl verions to maintain?
provides=('libcrypto.so' 'libssl.so')
At the same tim
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 20:03, Levente Polyak wrote:
> https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2022-October/000238.html
Started the rebuilds with 3.0.5, let's not forget to bump to 3.0.7
before moving to testing!
On 10/25/22 17:49, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 12:15, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
If the above approach seems good, please commit the updated PKGBUILD
to svn. We'll then start the rebuilds on [1] and see how they go.
Slight change of plans, Jan is going to push GNOME 43 first
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 12:15, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> If the above approach seems good, please commit the updated PKGBUILD
> to svn. We'll then start the rebuilds on [1] and see how they go.
Slight change of plans, Jan is going to push GNOME 43 first. We should
be able to do OpenSSL 3 right af
Hey,
On 25/10/2022 11:15, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
Hi Pierre,
We were discussing on IRC about starting the OpenSSL 3.0 rebuild. For
bootstrapping, we could make the openssl package depend on openssl-1.1
while building the following:
- coreutils
- curl
- kmod
- krb5
- libarchive
- libevent
- li
Hi Pierre,
We were discussing on IRC about starting the OpenSSL 3.0 rebuild. For
bootstrapping, we could make the openssl package depend on openssl-1.1
while building the following:
- coreutils
- curl
- kmod
- krb5
- libarchive
- libevent
- libssh2
- pacman
- sudo
- systemd
After these are linke
On 9/20/22 11:23, Andreas Radke wrote:
What's the status? Can we start the actual move and rebuilds? There
should be enough work done by other distributions to fix major issues.
We'are already late at that party.
Yes. According to https://github.com/loqs/PACKAGES-OSSL3 all packages
are either
What's the status? Can we start the actual move and rebuilds? There
should be enough work done by other distributions to fix major issues.
We'are already late at that party.
-Andy
pgpJk9ES4KCpd.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Am Mon, 21 Mar 2022 18:52:14 +0100
schrieb Pierre Schmitz via arch-dev-public
:
> Hi Christian,
>
> there were some delays due to other rebuilds and lack of time/other
> issues.
>
> So far I did not get any feedback, so I'd like to repeat my request
> for help.
> * If someone with more C knowled
Hi Christian,
there were some delays due to other rebuilds and lack of time/other issues.
So far I did not get any feedback, so I'd like to repeat my request for help.
* If someone with more C knowledge could review the openssl-1.1
package that would be great
* To all maintainers: Please have a l
Pierre Schmitz via arch-dev-public on
Sun, 2022/01/23 12:50:
> Next steps:
> 1) Let's agree on a time window where no other rebuild can take place
> within our staging repos. How about at least the first two weeks in
> February?
The todo list has been around for too long already. Any news on this
So I just build the 437 packages (pkgbase) and let my computer compile
for just 25 hours. The initial results can be seen here
https://md.archlinux.org/s/t8HOyhNOi
Currently there are 27 packages in [core]/[extra] and 92 in
[community] that do not build. I did not check the logs for every
package
On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 16:47 +0100, Christian Hesse via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> Pierre Schmitz via arch-dev-public
> on
> Sun, 2022/01/23 12:50:
> > Next steps:
> > 1) Let's agree on a time window where no other rebuild can take
> > place
> > within our staging repos. How about at least the first
Pierre Schmitz via arch-dev-public on
Sun, 2022/01/23 12:50:
> Next steps:
> 1) Let's agree on a time window where no other rebuild can take place
> within our staging repos. How about at least the first two weeks in
> February?
I guess the ffmpeg 5.0 will be blocking for some time...
--
main(a)
Hi all,
I have prepared a openssl-3.0 and 1.1 packages with the bootstrapped
dependencies. In addition to this there is a hopefully complete todo
list: https://archlinux.org/todo/openssl-30/ containing about 500
packages.
Next steps:
1) Let's agree on a time window where no other rebuild can take
a follow up:
* Retiring OpenSSL 1.0 will take place here:
https://archlinux.org/todo/openssl-10-retirement/ This wont affect the
1.1 -> 3.0 transition though.
* I have placed an openssl-1.1 package into [staging] that should make
it easier to migrate as it provides the 1.1 version of libcrypto.so
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
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 th
21 matches
Mail list logo
