You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I would like to build a opcua-asyncio package for Fedora 40, however the constraints cryptography>42.0.0 and pyOpenSSL>23.2.0 are quite limiting. Are they really needed? Maybe they could be slightly relaxed.
If it is not possible, I will have to stay on asyncua 1.1.0.
Would it therefore be safe to relax the constraint to pyopenssl>=23.2.0, i.e. the version that is readily available in Fedora 40?
cryptography
Fedora 40 provides cryptography 41.0.7. The constraint for cryptography was introduced in 9aedc20 (#1661). The comment suggests it was necessary because of the use of not_valid_after_utc. But maybe there is a way to support slightly older cryptography?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I would like to build a opcua-asyncio package for Fedora 40, however the constraints
cryptography>42.0.0
andpyOpenSSL>23.2.0
are quite limiting. Are they really needed? Maybe they could be slightly relaxed.If it is not possible, I will have to stay on asyncua 1.1.0.
pyopenssl
Fedora 40 provides pyopenssl 23.2.0. The constraint for asyncua was added in 8353920 (#1593). In the diff between 23.2.0..23.3.0 is no mention of
X509_V_FLAG_NOTIFY_POLICY
.Would it therefore be safe to relax the constraint to
pyopenssl>=23.2.0
, i.e. the version that is readily available in Fedora 40?cryptography
Fedora 40 provides cryptography 41.0.7. The constraint for cryptography was introduced in 9aedc20 (#1661). The comment suggests it was necessary because of the use of
not_valid_after_utc
. But maybe there is a way to support slightly older cryptography?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: