On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:51 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> On 30.03.24 22:27, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > 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-year one, which I suppose is now called "maintenance
> support".
I might have confused myself with the two EOLs and some wishful
thinking. I am a lot less worked up about this general topic now that
RHEL has moved to "rolling" LLVM updates in minor releases, removing a
physical-pain-inducing 10-year vacuuming horizon (that's 20 LLVM major
releases and they only fix bugs in one...). I will leave openssl
discussions to those more knowledgeable about that.
> So if the above package list is correct, then we ought to keep
> supporting openssl 1.1.* until 2029.
That's a shame. But it sounds like the developer burden isn't so
different from 1.1.1 to 3.x, so maybe it's not such a big deal from
our point of view. (I have no opinion on the security ramifications
of upstream's EOL, but as a layman it sounds completely bonkers to use
it. I wonder why the packaging community wouldn't just arrange to
have a supported-by-upstream 3.x package in their RPM repo when they
supply the newest PostgreSQL versions for the oldest RHEL, but again
not my area so I'll shut up).