On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:51 AM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > On 30.03.24 22:27, Thomas Munro wrote: > > 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".
I might have confused myself with the two EOLs and some wishful thinking. I am a lot less worked up about this general topic now that RHEL has moved to "rolling" LLVM updates in minor releases, removing a physical-pain-inducing 10-year vacuuming horizon (that's 20 LLVM major releases and they only fix bugs in one...). I will leave openssl discussions to those more knowledgeable about that. > So if the above package list is correct, then we ought to keep > supporting openssl 1.1.* until 2029. That's a shame. But it sounds like the developer burden isn't so different from 1.1.1 to 3.x, so maybe it's not such a big deal from our point of view. (I have no opinion on the security ramifications of upstream's EOL, but as a layman it sounds completely bonkers to use it. I wonder why the packaging community wouldn't just arrange to have a supported-by-upstream 3.x package in their RPM repo when they supply the newest PostgreSQL versions for the oldest RHEL, but again not my area so I'll shut up).
