upgrade to openssl 3.0.0
Christopher Jones
jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk
Thu Oct 7 16:16:09 UTC 2021
https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/12514 <https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/12514>
> On 6 Oct 2021, at 5:46 pm, Christopher Jones <jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> I’m working on the basic changes to implement my suggestion at the moment. Once that is there testing specific ports against version 3 ’the canaries’ will be trivial. more in a bit.
>
>> On 6 Oct 2021, at 5:40 pm, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com <mailto:ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> For whoever gets up the enthusiasm to take on the storm of nay-sayers:
>>
>> Although I found about 90% of the 100 or so ports I tried built without any changes against openssl 3.0.0 (rust, cargo, qt5, qt4-mac, etc, etc), and the rest were easy < 5 min fixes to use our openssl11 port, I noted in the openssl 3 migration guide that the FIPS mode is disabled by default on the openssl 3 build, and has to be expressly enabled.
>>
>> I recall that most of the (very few) build failures I saw were in fact FIPS failures, so enabling that module might fix a bunch of them.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:54 PM Fred Wright <fw at fwright.net <mailto:fw at fwright.net>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2021, Christopher Jones wrote:
>> >> On 4 Oct 2021, at 5:54 pm, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com <mailto:ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I was hoping to move this along for the overwhelming benefit of the
>> >> license, but TBH the push-back so far is 99.99% negative about moving
>> >> to openssl 3.0.0 this year, so too controversial for me to get involved
>> >> with. I'll sit back for six to twelve months and see what you guys work
>> >> out over the coming year.
>> >
>> > All the more reason to follow my suggested migration path then I would
>> > say, as it allows an openssl30 port to be made available, and those
>> > ports that wish to can use it via the new PG, but it doesn’t have to
>> > become the default until some later date.
>>
>> The PR thread contained (approximately) the following two statements:
>>
>> 1) Unless v3 is the default, nobody will bother to use it.
>>
>> 2) Everybody is really, *really* anxious to move to v3 for the more
>> permissive license.
>>
>> Clearly those two statements are in conflict.
>>
>> At Google, we had a process called "canarying". Although technically a
>> misnomer, it referred to the "canary in the coal mine" concept, with the
>> idea that rolling out new stuff with possible issues should start small,
>> so that problems could be found (and hopefully fixed) before they caused
>> large-scale breakage.
>>
>> If the OpenSSL folks were committed to maintaining backward compatibility,
>> then none of this nonsense would be necessary, but it's clear that they're
>> not. And there's no reason to assume that they won't pull the same crap
>> again in the future (having done so at least twice already), so having a
>> mechanism for multiple coexisting OpenSSL "major" versions could have
>> long-term value beyond the v3 transition.
>>
>> > TBH I also was quite dubious of making 3.0.0 the default any time ’soon’
>>
>> I agree, especially if the only end benefit is the license. Remember,
>> OpenSSL is the poster child for why *not* to assume that that newer is
>> more secure. :-)
>>
>> Fred Wright
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20211007/3b6d0773/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1930 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20211007/3b6d0773/attachment.bin>
More information about the macports-dev
mailing list