IMHO, no reason not to move forward with 3.x, ever

On Sun, Jun 25, 2023, 13:07 SUSAN HINRICHS <shinr...@ieee.org.invalid>
wrote:

> I think Chris' original proposal of requiring at least 1.1.1 is sound. That
> would mean in practice stop supporting openssl 1.0.2.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 used to use, CentOS 7, is so outdated that its toolsets and libraries are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
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to