> On May 14, 2022, at 1:54 PM, Joshua C. Colp <jc...@sangoma.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 2:04 PM Philip Prindeville 
>> <philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was trying to figure out why builds on my laptop on Ubuntu 20.04 LTS and 
>> Openssl 1.1.1f and 3.0 both succeed, but CI/CD is failing.
>> OpenSSL 1.0.2k-fips  26 Jan 2017
>> NAME="CentOS Linux"
>> VERSION="7 (Core)"
>> ID="centos"
>> ID_LIKE="rhel fedora"
>> PRETTY_NAME="CentOS Linux 7 (Core)"
>> ANSI_COLOR="0;31"
>> CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:centos:centos:7"
>> HOME_URL="https://www.centos.org/";
>> BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.centos.org/";
>> Why are we building against an EOL version of CentOS and an equally old 
>> version of Openssl 1.0.x?
> CentOS 7 is still widely used and is something we're supporting. It's the 
> oldest distro I think really that we're still supporting, which is why CI/CD 
> uses it.

Then maybe bracket things, with a 2nd build environment that's relatively 
modern and with current releases of runtimes and toolchains?

Can we deprecate res_crypto.so on Openssl 1.0.x and say it's no longer 

>> Can we update the CI/CD recipe to something more current?  Like CentOS 8.5?
> Update? No. Add in addition? Possibly, but I don't want to sink time into it 
> at this point because we're planning to move away from our current 
> environment and usage (not for a few months, email and wiki page coming in 
> the future).

Then... my reviews are parked until they can get a successful build?

Or do we just test the reviews outside of CI/CD?

I've added a workaround for the bug in Openssl 1.0.2f, and confirmed that it 
was fixed for the 1.1.0 release.

At the very least builds against Openssl 1.1.x or 3.0 (maybe with a tag or 
attribute in the Gerrit review so that not every review consumes the resources 
unnecessarily) would give coverage...



-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:

Reply via email to