On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 18:48:02 +0200, Till Wegmüller wrote:
>> mongodb
>> would have to be updated to at least 6.0.7 for ssl 3 support.
> Which would be good since 4.4 is EOL end of October anyway
according to their website the eol date for 4.4 was even february. october eol
is 5.0.
> In Place it
On 19.04.24 03:43, Goetz T. Fischer wrote:
a few updates here ...
i've been going through the list and picked the ones which are reachable from
the outside first but
also gave gftp a try. gftp and rsync turned out to be cases which don't take
openssl 3 by just
settings the usual as well as
a few updates here ...
i've been going through the list and picked the ones which are reachable from
the outside first but
also gave gftp a try. gftp and rsync turned out to be cases which don't take
openssl 3 by just
settings the usual as well as specific environment variables and don't
Hello
On 24.02.24 19:23, Marcel Telka wrote:
Sorry, this is not true. Proof:
$ pkg contents -mr library/python/cryptography-39 | grep ^depend.*openssl
dependfmri=pkg:/library/security/openssl-31@3.1.5-2024.0.0.0 type=require
$ grep -i ssl components/python/cryptography/Makefile
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 02:32:14AM +0100, Goetz T. Fischer wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 19:23:33 +0100, Marcel Telka wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:27:30PM +0100, Goetz T. Fischer wrote:
> >> as you know there're still some packages in the repo that use openssl
> >> 1.0.2.
> >>
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 17:22:16 +0100, Till Wegmueller wrote:
> 1. Old Packages with newer versions available in the repo.
> In this case this will be solved if/when we do the next repo cleanup.
> (You could also clean them out of your list, we can ignore those)
good.
> 2. Packages not being able
On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 02:36:29AM +0100, Goetz T. Fischer wrote:
> yes, going with 3.0 is the best choice. but i guess that ship has sailed for
> indiana already.
No, it didn't. If there is a PR with OpenSSL 3.0 addition then it would
get my full +1.
--
Hey Goetz
On 24.02.2024 18:27, Goetz T. Fischer wrote:
hey all,
as you know there're still some packages in the repo that use openssl 1.0.2. so
far this had the unpleasant implication that all new packages had to be
hardcoded to newer ssl versions one way or the other, because the
yes, going with 3.0 is the best choice. but i guess that ship has sailed for
indiana already.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 13:33:53 -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> While OpenSSL now
> promises that all later 3.x versions will be backwards compatible with 3.0,
> they are also promising a longer support
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 19:23:33 +0100, Marcel Telka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:27:30PM +0100, Goetz T. Fischer wrote:
>> as you know there're still some packages in the repo that use openssl 1.0.2.
>> so
>> far this had the unpleasant implication that all new packages had to be
>>
On 2/24/24 10:23, Marcel Telka wrote:
in any case. probably more tricky is the system stuff like wpa.
The wpa package comes from illumos-gate. I'm not sure if it supports
newer OpenSSL than 1.0 out of the box. If not then it should be fixed
there. If it does, then maybe we need to adjust
On 2/24/24 09:27, Goetz T. Fischer wrote:
having a peek at other repos shows that e.g. the solaris userland has sort of a
compromise solution. they do set the ssl version explicitly. however, their
package names only contain the major version like "openssl-3" and the same goes
for the install
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:27:30PM +0100, Goetz T. Fischer wrote:
> as you know there're still some packages in the repo that use openssl 1.0.2.
> so
> far this had the unpleasant implication that all new packages had to be
> hardcoded to newer ssl versions one way or the other, because
the list ...
ssl102_deps.xz
Description: Binary data
___
oi-dev mailing list
oi-dev@openindiana.org
https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
hey all,
as you know there're still some packages in the repo that use openssl 1.0.2. so
far this had the unpleasant implication that all new packages had to be
hardcoded to newer ssl versions one way or the other, because the buildsystem's
ssl mediator had to remain at 1.0.
obviously that
15 matches
Mail list logo
