Be careful with trusting LLM output -- while I agree with the conclusions here, 
it's worth noting that RHEL 10 maintains OpenSSL 3.2.x ABI compatibility but 
backports 3.5.x fixes and PQC cipher suites.  Requiring 3.5 will fail builds 
regardless.  I also support the 3.0.x (or 3.2.x) minimum here.

--Jered

----- On Jan 14, 2026, at 12:19 PM, Bryan Call [email protected] wrote:

> I had Claude make a plan for 3.0.x vs 3.5.x.  There aren’t a lot of operating
> systems that support 3.5.x at this moment.  I suggest supporting 3.0.x, but
> recommending people use 3.5.x or newer.
> 
> ATS 11.x OpenSSL Minimum Version - Two Options
> ===============================================
> 
> PLAN A: Minimum OpenSSL 3.0.x (Recommended)
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> Supported Platforms:
> • Ubuntu 22.04 LTS (OpenSSL 3.0.x) - supported until Apr 2027
> • Ubuntu 24.04 LTS (OpenSSL 3.0.x) - supported until Apr 2029
> • Debian 12 Bookworm (OpenSSL 3.0.x) - supported until Jun 2028
> • RHEL/Rocky/Alma 9.x (OpenSSL 3.0.x) - supported until May 2032
> • Fedora 40+ (OpenSSL 3.2+)
> • FreeBSD 14.x (OpenSSL 3.0.x)
> • macOS via Homebrew
> 
> Dropped Platforms:
> • Ubuntu 20.04 LTS (OpenSSL 1.1.1) - EOL Apr 2025
> • Debian 11 Bullseye (OpenSSL 1.1.1) - EOL Aug 2026
> • RHEL/Rocky 8.x (OpenSSL 1.1.1) - maintenance mode
> • FreeBSD 13.x (OpenSSL 1.1.1) - EOL Jan 2026
> 
> Pros:
> ✓ Broad compatibility - covers most current enterprise distros
> ✓ Users already on these platforms, no forced upgrades
> ✓ Can keep existing OpenSSL 3.0 compatibility code
> 
> Cons:
> ⚠ OpenSSL 3.0 EOL Sept 2026 - may need to bump minimum in ATS 11.1 or 11.2
> ⚠ Miss out on OpenSSL 3.5 improvements
> 
> 
> PLAN B: Minimum OpenSSL 3.5.x (Forward-Looking)
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> Supported Platforms (once they adopt 3.5):
> • Ubuntu 26.04 LTS (expected Apr 2026)
> • Debian 13 Trixie (expected 2025-2026)
> • RHEL/Rocky 10 (expected late 2026)
> • Fedora 42+
> • FreeBSD 15.x
> • macOS via Homebrew (available now)
> 
> Dropped Platforms:
> • Ubuntu 22.04/24.04 LTS (OpenSSL 3.0.x) - SIGNIFICANT impact
> • Debian 12 (OpenSSL 3.0.x)
> • RHEL/Rocky 9.x (OpenSSL 3.0.x) - SIGNIFICANT impact
> • FreeBSD 14.x (OpenSSL 3.0.x)
> 
> Pros:
> ✓ 5-year LTS support (until Apr 2030)
> ✓ Clean codebase - no legacy workarounds
> ✓ Latest security features and performance
> 
> Cons:
> ✗ Drops Ubuntu 22.04/24.04 LTS - huge user base
> ✗ Drops RHEL 9 / Rocky 9 - major enterprise platform
> ✗ May delay ATS 11.x adoption until 2027
> 
> 
> SUMMARY
> -------
> 
>                        Plan A (3.0.x)    Plan B (3.5.x)
> User base at launch:    Large             Small
> Enterprise support:     RHEL 9, Ubuntu    RHEL 10, Ubuntu 26
>                        22/24
> OpenSSL EOL risk:       Sept 2026         Apr 2030
> Adoption timeline:      Immediate         2027+ for most
> 
> 
> RECOMMENDATION
> --------------
> 
> Plan A (3.0.x minimum) for ATS 11.0, with a documented plan to:
> 1. Raise minimum to 3.5 in ATS 11.2 or 12.0
> 2. Add deprecation warnings for 3.0.x in ATS 11.1
> 
> This balances compatibility with a clear forward path.
> 
> 
> -Bryan
> 
>> On Jan 13, 2026, at 5:56 PM, Leif Hedstrom <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 13, 2026, at 3:59 PM, Masakazu Kitajo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm thinking of bumping the minimum OpenSSL version that we support on ATS
>>> 11.0.
>>> 
>>> TLDR, I suggest bumping it to 3.0 (in other words, dropping the support for
>>> 1.1.1)
>>> 
>>> The version 1.1.1 is already too old. Curl recently dropped the support. I
>>> suppose everybody is fine with dropping the support. This would allow us to
>>> clean up our code.
>>> 
>>> Do we want to keep the support for OpenSSL 3.0?
>>> The 3.0 is an LTS release, and the EOL is Sep 2026. A newer LTS is 3.5. It
>>> was released in Apr 2025, and the EOL is Apr 2030. I feel like dropping the
>>> support for 3.0 is a little too aggressive for minor benefit in terms of
>>> code clean up, but I personally don't mind.
>>> https://openssl-library.org/roadmap/index.html
>> 
>> 
>> Gut feeling would be that we ought to bump it to v3.5, seeing that v3.0 will 
>> be
>> EOL before we make a v11 release.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
> > — Leif

Reply via email to