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-year one, 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.
