On 2016-12-05 23:36, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > <sebast...@breakpoint.cc> wrote: >> On 2016-10-09 11:38:37 [+0300], Török Edwin wrote: >>> Patches to build with both OpenSSL 1.0.x, and 1.1.0 are available in the >>> upstream git repository: >>> https://gitweb.skylable.com/gitweb/?p=sx.git;a=commitdiff;h=5acd940e97aa1f2bd1b3fdd41f4c98a5783fcb44 >>> https://gitweb.skylable.com/gitweb/?p=sx.git;a=commitdiff;h=0dcacbab63325a83668d000dc8ed7da3bf0e4f7d >>> https://gitweb.skylable.com/gitweb/?p=sx.git;a=commitdiff;h=86e06686a5fe10fd823dff805f8439a791290c5b >>> >>> They apply on top of SX 2.2. >> >> Okay. What do we do here? Any idea Laszlo? >> I could try to cherry-pick the three patches into the currect 2.0 but I >> can't look at them because the git server seems to be down at the moment. > I'm a bit confused to be honest. Upstream has a note that SX support > (or the entire SX) is closed down. > Edwin, does it mean that SX is no longer developed?
SX is no longer supported commercially, but it would be nice if the last version (2.3) would be available in Debian (it is open-source after all) > >> Upstream asked about packaging 2.3 which makes sense (I think) but there >> is something regarding the update path If I read this correctly. And 2.3 >> works with openssl 1.1 but needs to go via NEW due to libsxclient4 and I >> hope this "transition" is okay because libsxclient3 has no rdeps. > I've packaged SX 2.3 and it looks fine - the upgrade path needs > testing. I had a plan to do it in a virtual machine (don't want to > hurt my real data), but then I didn't have time. Now I'm on holidays > for three days - I may need to go home sooner, but I can share the > packaging then. Sounds good, thanks!
