On 02/22/2015 06:42 PM, Richard Moore wrote: > > > On 22 February 2015 at 17:39, Jeremy Lainé <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Whilst I agree with the goal of dropping support for old / > unmaintained > OpenSSL versions, in the case of OS X we probably need to map out the > transition in more detail - especially what policy to follow for the > official binary releases. My main concern is that in Qt 5.5 the > SecureTransport backend is available on OS X, but as far as I know we > are still aiming for OpenSSL-based binaries. This means that a lot of > users will not be exposed to this new backend at all, and then > suddenly > in Qt 5.6 the old backend will be completely gone, with no way to > build > it even from source. > > > I think you're misunderstanding. Openssl will remain supported, just > not the outdated 0.9.8 branch apple ship. Users will still be able to > make use of openssl on mac they'll just have install a newer version. > Does this change your concerns? >
I understood what you were saying, I think I just expressed my concerns poorly. When I said "now way to build even from source", I meant "no way to build support for OpenSSL as shipped by Apple". Anyway, my main concern is : how do we encourage OS X users to make use of the new backend, to avoid nasty surprises when it because the default backend? Slightly off-topic but related : does the Qt Company have any privileged access to Apple engineers working on Secure Transport? I would like to understand what the plans are regarding support for NPN / ALPN. Cheers, Jeremy
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
