Hello Thomas, Your concern is genuine, and there are a few reasons why I am confident this is achievable. * The list I see contains approximately 300 FTBFS packages. The effective list that needs to be addressed in universe is not that large. - Some of them are not OpenSSL related. - Some of them are package sets owned by Canonical engineering teams and will be fixed in time. - Some packages have already been picked up by the community since my announcement. * There are upstream patches available that have not yet reached Debian or synced/merged into Ubuntu. For example: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/14697. This significantly reduces the amount of active development required. * In some cases, I have seen a quick turnaround from upstream, as supporting the latest OpenSSL release is quite critical for them. For example: https://github.com/obgm/libcoap/issues/2045. * I was able to address 10 packages on the transition tracker in two days and have already submitted the fixes - http://sponsoring-reports.ubuntu.com/. * I am taking into account help from https://documentation.ubuntu.com/project/contributors/advanced/plus-one-maintenance/ for this large transition. * Finally, I cannot ignore the productivity gains from agentic engineering. This is especially relevant here because a fair number of the breaking changes are quite trivial to fix. For example: https://github.com/FreeRADIUS/freeradius-server/pull/5841. I do not expect all of them to be fixed, but I believe a substantial number of important packages will be addressed in time. I also have a regular sync with the Ubuntu Release Team to keep them informed of progress. If you are aware of any sources of failures that I have not accounted for, please share them so I can update my estimates. Regards Ravi On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 9:33 PM Thomas Ward via ubuntu-devel <ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com> wrote: > > I'm not going to reply with any of my Ubuntu hats on, but I will reply with my Ubuntu Developer and Debian Maintainer hats on 'cause packages I help maintain in Debian are impacted as well. > > On 2026-06-03 07:16, Ravi Kant Sharma via ubuntu-devel wrote: > > Hello ubuntu-devel, > > I am targeting OpenSSL 4 for Ubuntu 26.10 Stonking Stingray Release. > This major version introduces an ABI break. There is a transition > tracker set up: https://transitions.ubuntu.com/html/openssl4.html. > > I don't want to be annoying, but may I ask why we want this in 26.10 instead of 27.04? Since it's not in any major releases, and only in Debian Experimental at this time, do we really need to jump to OpenSSL 4.0 at the moment? The level of FTBFS I'm seeing with regards to this in Debian is *insane* and I'm doubtful the vast majority of these FTBFS will be fixed by an October release date. > > Just curious about the reasoning on this, Ravi. > > > Thomas > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
