> On Apr 15, 2018, at 1:38 AM, Richard Levitte <levi...@openssl.org> wrote: > > Errr, are we? Please inform me, because I cannot remember having seen > tests that specifically targets the case of programs built with 1.1.0 > that get implicitly relinked with 1.1.1 libraries (that's what you > call "going forward", isn't it?), or data collection for that matter. > I may have missed something, but I am interested.
It think it is most prudent to not fall into the trap of debating this particular side-issue. I commend your initiative of running the 1.1.0 tests against the 1.1.1 libraries, that's fantastic. And I further commend attention to the failure cases. Thank you. With that out of the way, it seems to me that apart from some fixes in the test framework, and tests that did not expect protocol versions higher than TLS 1.2, no *interesting* issues have turned up. If such issue did or will turn up let's fix them, but there should not be fundamental obstacles to an ABI-compatible 1.1.1 library with the same SONAME as its 1.1.0 predecessor. The new library may negotiate TLS 1.3 which 1.1.0 did not, but I don't see that as an incompatibility that requires an SONAME version bump. Which is not to say I could not be convinced otherwise, but at present I don't see a need for the bump, or for work-arounds to limit the negotiated protocols for code compiled against 1.1.0 that happens to run against 1.1.1. Let's stay alert, but not overreact to minor issues we can resolve. -- Viktor. _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list email@example.com https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project