Re: OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
From: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, Victor Wagner <vitus@wagner.pp.ru>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
Date: 2016-09-05T03:00:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> wrote: > On 09/05/2016 02:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Judging by the number of people who have popped up recently with their >> own OpenSSL 1.1 patches, I think there is going to be a lot of demand for >> back-patching some sort of 1.1 support into our back branches. All this >> talk of refactoring does not sound very back-patchable. Should we be >> thinking of what we can extract that is back-patchable? > > My idea is that the first of my four patches contains the minimum changes > needed to add support for 1.1 and tries to do as little refactoring as > possible while the other patches refactor things. I am not sure about if > anything of the other patches should be backpatched. From what I can see of the 4 patches proposed, those are not that much invasive, so a backpatch of those is really doable. But yes let's keep the refactoring only for HEAD. That's definitely the safest approach. -- Michael
Commits
-
Back-patch 9.4-era SSL renegotiation code into 9.3 and 9.2.
- fbfeceb25362 9.3.17 landed
- 58384149bdbd 9.2.21 landed