| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OpenSSL 1.1 breaks configure and more |
| Date: | 2016-09-05 00:32:56 |
| Message-ID: | 0749a2f3-e407-5abd-9772-8c51e84de40b@proxel.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/05/2016 02:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Judging by the number of people who have popped up recently with their
> own OpenSSL 1.1 patches, I think there is going to be a lot of demand for
> back-patching some sort of 1.1 support into our back branches. All this
> talk of refactoring does not sound very back-patchable. Should we be
> thinking of what we can extract that is back-patchable?
My idea is that the first of my four patches contains the minimum
changes needed to add support for 1.1 and tries to do as little
refactoring as possible while the other patches refactor things. I am
not sure about if anything of the other patches should be backpatched.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-09-05 00:47:54 | Re: Parallel build with MSVC |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-05 00:26:12 | Re: Parallel build with MSVC |