On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Sander Temme wrote: > > On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> >> On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Joe Orton wrote: >> >>> Thanks very much for all the responses. There is strong consensus for >>> retaining support for some varieties of 0.9.8 and possibly some 0.9.7. >>> >>> A new RFC, then, for trunk/2.3 and beyond: >>> >>> - support and build warning-free with OpenSSL >= 0.9.8 >>> - support and build with OpenSSL >= 0.9.7a, albeit with (harmless) >>> compiler warnings about argument const-ness all over the shop >>> - drop support for OpenSSL < 0.9.7a >>> - drop support for non-OpenSSL/derivatives of OpenSSL >>> >>> (I have tried this out and it seems perfectly feasible.) >>> >> >> How about --with-ssl only looks for OpenSSL >= 1.0.0 and >> we have a new option, --with-old-ssl (or whatever) which >> allows for 0.9.[87] varieties... > > Would it reduce the complexity of the autofoo behind it enough to justify the > increase in complexity for the user^Wbuilder? >
Well, the idea is that anyone building an SSL 2.4 using the same options as for 2.2 will get OpenSSL 1.0.0 only and by default. If they don't have it, it forces them to take action and either install 1.0.0 or change their build process to use the "deprecation" option.
