On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:38:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The discussion we had last year concluded that we were OK with > dropping 1.0.1 support when RHEL6 goes out of extended support > (June 2024 per this thread, I didn't check it). Seems like we > should have the same policy for RHEL7. Also, calling Photon 3 > dead because it went EOL three days ago seems over-hasty.
Yeah. A bunch of users of Photon are VMware (or you could say Broadcom) product appliances, and I'd suspect that quite a lot of them rely on Photon 3 for their base OS image. Upgrading that stuff is not easy work in my experience because they need to cope with a bunch of embedded services. > Bottom line for me is that pulling 1.0.1 support now is OK, > but I think pulling 1.0.2 is premature. Yeah, I guess so. At least that seems like the safest conclusion currently here. The build-time check on X509_get_signature_info() would still be required. I'd love being able to rip out the internal locking logic currently in libpq as LibreSSL has traces of CRYPTO_lock(), as far as I've checked, and we rely on its existence. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
