On Friday, 9 February 2018 10:04:30 PST Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> Il 09/02/2018 16:57, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
> > This release is too old. It still has Qt 5.6.
> > But I know for a time openSUSE backported the OpenSSL 1.1 patch onto Qt
> > 5.9. Now Tumbleweed has Qt 5.10 anyway.
> The point isn't which version of Qt comes with the distribution, but the
> binary builds. Given people do use binary builds (to have an up-to-date
> Qt) but not mess with OpenSSL, the outcome will be that SSL will not be
> functional for the users of the distributions I mentioned before.
Oh! I hadn't thought of that.
On Windows, it shouldn't be a problem since people need to install OpenSSL
manually, so they'll naturally get 1.1. On Mac, we haven't used OpenSSL for a
few releases. The problem is the current crop of Linux stable distributions.
> Does TQC have any statistics to share here?
> If the argument becomes "those people can stay with LTS or build from
> sources", then well, let's go all in for the binary builds, shall we?
> Like build with C++17 and GCC7?
We already build with C++17, but with GCC 5.
But I say people who need OpenSSL 1.0 should stay with 5.10, one of the LTS,
build from sources, or use their distribution's packages. There are a lot of
UNLESS this will make the Qt SDK installer and maintenance tool not work.
Since I don't use it, I don't know: does it ship with OpenSSL or does it
expect to find one in the Linux target system, in order to perform the
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Development mailing list