> On 4 Apr 2024, at 00:51, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>
> On 30.03.24 22:27, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 9:59 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I was reminded of this thread by ambient security paranoia. As it
>>>> stands, we require 1.0.2 (but we very much hope that package
>>>> maintainers and others in control of builds don't decide to use it).
>>>> Should we skip 1.1.1 and move to requiring 3 for v17?
>>>
>>> I'd be kind of sad if I couldn't test SSL stuff anymore on my
>>> primary workstation, which has
>>>
>>> $ rpm -q openssl
>>> openssl-1.1.1k-12.el8_9.x86_64
>>>
>>> I think it's probably true that <=1.0.2 is not in any distro that
>>> we still need to pay attention to, but I reject the contention
>>> that RHEL8 is not in that set.
>> Hmm, OK so it doesn't have 3 available in parallel from base repos.
>> But it's also about to reach end of "full support" in 2 months[1], so
>> if we applied the policies we discussed in the LLVM-vacuuming thread
>> (to wit: build farm - EOL'd OSes), then... One question I'm unclear
>> on is whether v17 will be packaged for RHEL8.
>
> The rest of the thread talks about the end of support of RHEL 7, but you are here talking about RHEL 8. It is true
that"full support" for RHEL 8 ended in May 2024, but that is the not the one we are tracking. We are tracking the
10-yearone, which I suppose is now called "maintenance support".
>
> So if the above package list is correct, then we ought to keep supporting openssl 1.1.* until 2029.
Not 1.1.* but 1.1.1+. In the old OpenSSL version numbering scheme, releases
changing the last digit would contain new features and releases that updated
the appended letter only fixed bugs.
--
Daniel Gustafsson