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 options. 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 downloads? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
