On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 01:29:35AM +0300, Artem Panfilov wrote: > > On 28.07.2021 23:07, Tom Rini wrote: > > There is a fine line at least that I'm willing to walk in terms of > > supporting ancient OSes directly and also not making things overly > > complicated in our own tree. That said, openssl tends to be one of the > > ones where it does get hard to support old versions. LibreSSL 2.7.5 was > > released December 15th, 2018 and is the end of the 2.7.x line it seems. > > > > I'm interested to hear what the case is where the right call is the say > > you're building modern software for real world use against such old > > libraries. > Hi Tom, > I have a specific test case where I test if it's still possible to > build upstream master u-boot on our infrastructure (progression testing). > I also test runtime on our boards. > > I understand that nowadays everyone uses docker container, > but we have limited docker nodes right now on our site. > > If you don't want to support OpenSSL < 1.1.0 and do not test it, > then I suggest dropping it all over the tree because it doesn't > make sense and looks misleading with such a partial solution.
Part of the question is then, were you enabling the SSL-related parts before this change? Or did the way the code is now being enabled/disabled trigger this now being enabled when it wasn't before? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
