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

Reply via email to