Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Lars Kanis wrote:
>>> Maybe version 2 (my initial patch) could be an alternative ?
>
>> Well, based on the "we don't know which different versions of openssl
>> it'll break with", version 2 is no better than version 3 :(
>
> Yeah, if we do anything I think it should be more like #3.
>
> I think all or most back releases of openssl are available from
> openssl.org. If someone had time to do a test compile of the proposed
> patch against all of 'em (or at least all the ones we still claim to
> support), it would salve my worries at least a bit. I'm not sure if
> that's a big task or not, though.
I ran a build with OpenSSL 0.9.8 (default on my machine) and 0.9.7.
AFAICS, only 0.9.8 is supported at all these days. There is no point in
running against <0.9.7, since there was no engine support in that.
I tried 0.9.7m, 0.9.7c, 0.9.8g (Ubuntu) and 0.9.8b just to be sure. But
they do seem to have a policy similar to our own - no features in
backbranches.
I only tested building (make clean, re-configure, make in pg) and it
worked fine. Default configuration on OpenSSL.
This is certainly not an exhaustive test, but I think it does a fair job
of bracketing the possible versions with issues.
//Magnus