Hi! I'm CCing the Qt5 bug too because this concerns both versions. On martes, 30 de agosto de 2016 12:40:12 P. M. ART Gert Wollny wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 30.08.2016, 08:51 +0200 schrieb Kurt Roeckx: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 09:53:20PM +0200, Gert Wollny wrote: > > > Thanks for the review. > > > > Can I ask what the current state of this is? > > IIRC the last patch applies properly and compiles with openssl 1.0 and > 1.1, but since the package doesn't run a test suite at build time I > have no Idea whether it breaks functionality or not. > > As I pointed out before, I'm neither anopenssl nor a Qt expert, so > additional reviews of the patch would probably be sensible.
Even if I could check the "Qt side" of the patch I would also not be able to asser the correctnes of the openssl side. But on the other hand Qt4 is dead upstream, so we could push it to the archive and see what happens... Not the best idea around, but a compromise solution. And we only have less than three months before freeze :-/ But even if we could do that with Qt4 we would still have to fix Qt5 too. OpenSSL final was released a couple of days ago, so upstream will probably start to work on this soon.We want upstream to do this change because they know much better than us what's around the code. But this also means that this won't be ready for stretch. I do *really* understand that, much in the same way I would like to support only Qt5, it would be preferable to support only one openssl version in stretch, but I think we are already too late for this from the Qt side. I would be perfectly happy to push the Qt4 patch once we get stretch released, and we will probably have a compatible Qt5 version around that time too. Kinds regards, Lisandro. -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
