> Am 13.09.2021 um 11:05 schrieb Dennis Clarke <dcla...@blastwave.org>:
>
> On 9/13/21 04:22, Joe Orton wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 01:23:37AM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> ALL :
>>>
>>>
>>> I may receive no reply to this but in general I have been able to build
>>> Apache httpd from any release tarball as well as from trunk. When httpd
>>> needed to get TLS 1.3 working it was a slam dunk to get that working and
>>> it did. However now we have OpenSSL 3.0.0 and it seems that neither the
>>> latest RC works nor does trunk.
>>>
>>> So then ... how to proceed ?
>>
>> What fails with trunk?
>>
>> It's expected that httpd 2.4 doesn't support 3.0 yet, hopefully we can
>> get this in for a future release but OpenSSL 3.0 has been a moving
>> target until just six days ago.
>>
>> Regards, Joe
>>
>
> Why "expected" that httpd 2.4 doesn't support 3.0 ?
>
> While I realize that 3.0.0 is very shiney new and still has a green glow
> to is we also know that the beta program has been in place for months
> and the release candidates go back a year.
>
> You have me at a loss.
>
> That Apache httpd, the biggest web server on planet Earth ( let me check
> mars ) has never looked at OpenSSL 3.0.0 as an event in the mail? It has
> been shipped. Delivered. Done. It works. What are you saying?
What we are saying and what you found out on testing it is that 2.4.49
is not ready for OpenSSL 3.0. No laying blame anywhere will make it so.
Rather than painting this black and white picture, you have to see
that there have been adaptations to changes in OpenSSL 3.0. They are
just not complete.
If that could have been better, well, of course. I could say that You
could have done the necessary also. But such discussions do not lead
us anywhere.
2.4.49 contains relevant changes for people who run OpenSSL 1.1 and
other SSL libraries. And I think it should therefore ship as a better
2.4.48. Unless we find a regression.
- Stefan
> --
> Dennis Clarke
> RISC-V/SPARC/PPC/ARM/CISC
> UNIX and Linux spoken
> GreyBeard and suspenders optional
