ong term (whether
> it's by pulling patches from Red Hat, etc), so it doesn't rot
> like netbsd-8.
Agreed. I think we're headed for openssl 3 being security/openssl3 and
some way to select 1.1.1 vs 3 (globally for pkgsrc), with builtin
processing to use base isntead for both cas
There are likely problems mixing different OpenSSL shared object
versions in pkgsrc, no?
If NetBSD 10 is to have OpenSSL 1.1 I think it's critical we
establish a flow for maintaining it in the long term (whether
it's by pulling patches from Red Hat, etc), so it doesn't rot
like netbsd-8.
Reinoud Zandijk writes:
>> My impression is that work to make things build with 3.0.0 is in
>> progress, but that the fallout from a (not committed, in testing) switch
>> is over 5000 packages. But I expect that will rapidly get better.
>>
>>
>> https://us-east.manta.joyent.com/pkgsrc/publi
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 09:18:23AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Martin Husemann writes:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 08:44:22AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >> What are people thinking about
> >>
> >> updating openssl to 3.0.0 in current
> >
> > Yes, someone(tm) should do that! Early to catc
On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 06:30:36PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:54:18PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > > So, if it happens that way, then it really does not matter from the
> > > NetBSD side if pkgsrc moves to 3 this branch, or adds 3 as an option
> > > alongside 1
David Holland writes:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:54:18PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> > So, if it happens that way, then it really does not matter from the
> > NetBSD side if pkgsrc moves to 3 this branch, or adds 3 as an option
> > alongside 1.1.1, or doesn't do either. But, as you switch
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 07:54:18PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> So, if it happens that way, then it really does not matter from the
> NetBSD side if pkgsrc moves to 3 this branch, or adds 3 as an option
> alongside 1.1.1, or doesn't do either. But, as you switch things, it
> will be good for p
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
> My thoughts are:
> - It is too late to put OpenSSL-3.0.0 un current, to become part of NetBSD-10.
> - After the NetBSD-10 branch, I will move OpenSSL-1.1.1 to openssl.old and
> import OpenSSL-3.0.0 in openssl. Every port will point to openssl.old.
d support until
>2024.
>
>Hence, I'm going to ignore 8, as it will be out of support long before
>1.1.1 is desupported upstream (but don't quote on that in fall of 2023).
>
>
>What are people thinking about
>
> updating openssl to 3.0.0 in current
>
> if
Martin Husemann writes:
>> I don't know what you mean exactly. Certainly at some point pkgsrc
>> builds on 9 will use pkgsrc openssl. Perhaps long before that. But I
>> don't see how e.g. postfix in base is going to use pkgsrc openssl.
>
> Right, so the admin of an affected machine would ha
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 09:18:23AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> The real question is what kind of pace of update is best, as maintained
> upstreams are going to make releases that work with openssl3, and not
> being first makes life easier.
>
> I suspect in a few weeks we'll have a better idea.
I
break on current. So then people
who care can fix them, as usual.
The real question is what kind of pace of update is best, as maintained
upstreams are going to make releases that work with openssl3, and not
being first makes life easier.
I suspect in a few weeks we'll have a better idea
I don't think we need to sequence this, thing will follow naturally
from people hitting more fallout.
> pulling up openssl 3 to 9?
We can't do that. Instead, at some point (probably a bit past the two
years 1.1 will still receive updates) we will have to bite and switch
netbsd-9 o
.1 is desupported upstream (but don't quote on that in fall of 2023).
What are people thinking about
updating openssl to 3.0.0 in current
if so, the effects on building pkgsrc and how to sequence that
pulling up openssl 3 to 9?
I am guessing:
pkgsrc needs to be able to cope with 3
14 matches
Mail list logo
