On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 07:30:32AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> In the last 30 days, only the following buildfarm animals have reported
> running the ssl checks on the relevant branches:
>
> gokiburi
> hachi
FWIW, these two ones are using OpenSSL 1.1.1, so that's fine.
--
Michael
signature.
On 2023-02-08 We 10:42, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 07.02.23 19:28, Tom Lane wrote:
I think Peter's misremembering the history, and OpenSSL 3*is*
supported in these branches. There could be an argument for
not back-patching f0d2c65f17 on the grounds that pre-1.1.1 is
also supported there. On t
Erik Rijkers writes:
> Op 08-02-2023 om 05:37 schreef Tom Lane:
>> Question: is anybody around here still testing with 0.9.8 (or 1.0.x)
>> at all? The systems I had that had that version on them are dead.
> I've hoarded an old centos 6.1 system that I don't really use anymore
> but sometimes (o
On 07.02.23 19:28, Tom Lane wrote:
I think Peter's misremembering the history, and OpenSSL 3*is*
supported in these branches. There could be an argument for
not back-patching f0d2c65f17 on the grounds that pre-1.1.1 is
also supported there. On the whole though, it seems more useful
today for th
Op 08-02-2023 om 05:37 schreef Tom Lane:
Michael Paquier writes:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:28:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I think Peter's misremembering the history, and OpenSSL 3 *is*
supported in these branches. There could be an argument for
not back-patching f0d2c65f17 on the grounds tha
On 2023-02-07 Tu 23:37, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier writes:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:28:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I think Peter's misremembering the history, and OpenSSL 3 *is*
supported in these branches. There could be an argument for
not back-patching f0d2c65f17 on the grounds tha
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:28:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think Peter's misremembering the history, and OpenSSL 3 *is*
>> supported in these branches. There could be an argument for
>> not back-patching f0d2c65f17 on the grounds that pre-1.1.1 is
>> also supported t
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:28:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I double-checked this on Fedora 37 (openssl 3.0.5). v11 and v12
> do build --with-openssl. There are an annoyingly large number of
> -Wdeprecated-declarations warnings, but those are there in v13 too.
> I confirm that back-patching f0d2c
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 2023-02-07 Tu 02:18, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> This is not the only patch that we did to support OpenSSL 3.0.0. There
>> was a very lengthy discussion that resulted in various patches.
>> Unless we have a complete analysis of what was done and how it affects
>> var
On 2023-02-07 Tu 02:18, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 06.02.23 16:56, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I recently moved crake to a new machine running Fedora 36, which has
OpenSSL 3.0.0. This causes the SSL tests to fail on branches earlier
than release 13, so I propose to backpatch commit f0d2c65f17 to the
On 06.02.23 16:56, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I recently moved crake to a new machine running Fedora 36, which has
OpenSSL 3.0.0. This causes the SSL tests to fail on branches earlier
than release 13, so I propose to backpatch commit f0d2c65f17 to the
release 11 and 12 branches.
This is not the on
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 2023-02-06 Mo 11:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So presumably, changing this test would break it for OpenSSL 0.9.8,
>> which is still nominally supported in those branches. On the other
>> hand, this test isn't run by default, so users would likely never
>> notice anyway.
> P
On 2023-02-06 Mo 11:13, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
I recently moved crake to a new machine running Fedora 36, which has
OpenSSL 3.0.0. This causes the SSL tests to fail on branches earlier
than release 13, so I propose to backpatch commit f0d2c65f17 to the
release 11 and 12 branche
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> I recently moved crake to a new machine running Fedora 36, which has
> OpenSSL 3.0.0. This causes the SSL tests to fail on branches earlier
> than release 13, so I propose to backpatch commit f0d2c65f17 to the
> release 11 and 12 branches.
Hmm ... according to that com
14 matches
Mail list logo
