> On Jun 25, 2023, at 12:07, SUSAN HINRICHS <shinr...@ieee.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> While 1.1.1 has been moved to EOL, I think it is premature to stop
> supporting 1.1.1. At Aviatrix we are using 1.1.1, and starting to look at
> openssl 3.0. I think a number of other ATS users are in a similar
> situation. Perhaps in a year, we should re-evaluate 1.1.1 support.
+1
— Leif
>
>> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 12:45 AM James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On 25 Jun 2023, at 1:13 pm, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> We don’t really support OS versions per se anymore. The one most people
>> used to use, CentOS 7, is so outdated that its toolsets and libraries are
>> not usable.
>>>
>>> Rather, we set version requirements on all the dependencies. This was
>> done a few years ago, and that’s what Chris is suggesting we update for
>> OpenSSL.
>>
>> Ah, fair enough. Since OpenSSL 1.1.1 is EOL, it seems reasonable to
>> require more current versions
>>
>> https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2023/03/28/1.1.1-EOL/
>>
>>>
>>> I think there’s a page somewhere listing the current minimum versions?
>>>
>>> — Leif
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 24, 2023, at 20:41, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 24 Jun 2023, at 2:52 am, Chris McFarlen <ch...@mcfarlen.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As part of updating the build system to cmake we are looking for areas
>> to simplify the build. One area could be the conditional checks and
>> preprocessor defines around features added to openssl on or before 1.1.1.
>> This email is to propose and get feedback for making the minimum supported
>> version of openssl be version 1.1.1 and to cleanup the code to assume the
>> same.
>>>>
>>>> What OpenSSL versions are provided on the supported OS and distribution
>> versions?
>>>>
>>>> J
>>
>>
