Re: OpenSSL 1.0.0

[Jim Jagielski]

On Jul 28, 2009, at 4:32 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

Jim Jagielski wrote:

On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

Guenter Knauf wrote:

Guenter Knauf schrieb:

Hi,
Sander Temme schrieb:

On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:

Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
openssl-1.0.0betaX,
as far as I see, just some STACK things and casts need to be
cleaned.

Trunk became aware of OpenSSL trunk a while ago... but I don't recall putting that up for backport. I'll do so when I have come cycles.

I've yesterday compiled both HEAD and 2.2.x branch with OpenSSL 1.0.0 beta 3, and that went fine - although I have a very picky compiler for

NetWare which normally breaks for every type mismatch ...

whoops - I mixed up the include paths; Peter is right - seems that we

need to backport these:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=748396
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=749466

based on the above HEAD patches here's a 2.2.x branch patch:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/openssl-1.x-2.2.x.diff

please check and test if I catched all - I've tested on NetWare with

OpenSSL 0.9.7m, 0.9.8k and 1.0.0 beta3, and that went fine.
If nobody objects I'll propose this for backport.

Since 2.2.12 just shipped, I'd say apply it.  It will be easier for
everyone to validate from svn, no?

So +1 for committing and I'll commit to helping review-after-commit.

Huh? For 2.2??

Yes. This patchwork is straightforward, it simply needs dedicated eyes

to review and confirm on all platforms.

But my vote alone wouldn't do it, and _that_ was the misunderstanding.
Sorry to Guenter and others for the confusion.

Seeing as there are two votes against applying before the STATUS juggling

act, you would need five votes now, including Guenter's and mine, to
actually move forward from 2.2. branch in this manner.

What's wrong with a pointer to the patch in STATUS and a vote there?