openssl 3.0.0 is out, with a new and very favourable Apache-2 license that will
let many previously non-distributable ports become distributable. However,
there are 758 ports that indicate they link against openssl. That is a daunting
number of ports indeed.
One option might be to move all of our openssl ports (1.0, 1.1, and 3.x) into
subdirectories out of ${prefix}, have no default openssl installed in $[prefix}
directly, create a new PortGroup, openssl_select or some such, add that PG to
all 758 ports, default it to openssl 1.1.1, and then allow people to gradually
move the 758 ports to openssl 3.0.0 as they get to it.
Although that is possible with suitable effort, I don’t think that is workable
for many reasons, the most obvious being that we would then have to modify
every single port in some way to find an openssl installed into a non-default
prefix. Creating the PG and adding it to 758 ports might be work enough, but
then finding the right way to force all 758 ports to build properly against an
openssl that is not in the default prefix is the real horror, and seems like a
nightmare of wasted labours.
So it would appear that the same option that was chosen last time, ie upgrade
the default openssl in ${prefix} to the newer openssl, and then fix the subset
of ports that will not build against it to use an older openssl appears both
the better option and lot less work (assuming most ports do build against
openssl 3.0.0, which seems to be the case so far). Some will disagree, but I
put it to you that it is going to be far less work in the end to force a few %
of the ports to a specific alternate openssl than force all of them, all the
time, forever.
Most things I have attempted to rebuild over the past few days have rebuilt
without any issues, but a few things don’t build with openssl 3.0.0 yet and
will need to stay with openssl 1.1.1 for a while until patched or updated (or
forever). That will require both forcing those ports to find an alternate
openssl installation, and also (the tricky part) forcing them to ignore the
openssl in the default prefix.
To support this, there is a new openssl11 port that provides openssl 1.1.1
tucked away in a subdir, much like we have openssl10, and a few new options
were added to the old_openssl PortGroup to allow most ports to be forced to the
alternate openssl with minimal fuss. Add the PortGroup, spec the branch, and
choose the method, for the most part.
If this plan holds, I would anticipate that we move ports that we find need to
stay on openssl 1.1.1 to openssl11 using the old_openssl PortGroup soon or now,
before we upgrade to openssl 3.0.0 to minimize fuss. Then once we have done
that, upgrading the default openssl to 3.0.0 and revbumping the deps would
occur.
So I am asking that anyone with an interest in a port that uses openssl please
try building it against openssl 3.0.0 in the PR below, and if there is a
problem that can’t be solved by an update or a patch, consider trying to use
the old_openssl PortGroup to fix the build and move it over. As there are so
many ports, it would help if people pitched in with the ones that are important
to them.
The openssl 3.0.0 upgrade PR is here:
https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/12410
<https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/12410>
and my own WIP repo of a few ports that I have found won’t build with openssl
3.0.0 at present and fixed to use the old_openssl PG is here:
https://github.com/kencu/mybigsuroverlay/
<https://github.com/kencu/mybigsuroverlay/>
the idea is that the ports in that repo would be moved into the main repo as we
work through the main ones that use openssl at least.
K
PS. One thing I have not yet sorted out how to do is how to support libressl in
the setting of needing to force a port to openssl 1.1.1 using the old_openssl
PortGroup. Open to any thoughts on this. This case wsa basically just ignored
last time with openssl10, and we may have to do the same again unless someone
has a bright idea.
