Re: the path to openssl3

[Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%mnx.io@localhost>]

* On 2023-09-04 at 00:26 BST, Greg Troxel wrote:

> First, there is the question of 3.0 vs 3.1.  There is no incompat from
> 3.0 to 3.1, and 3.1 has more features.  So I think we should be on 3.1
> and switch to 3.2 after a few micros, and so on.  Opinions welcome
> especially if you think this is unwise.

My preference is for 3.0 given it is the LTS release.  I'm obviously 
biased given I support LTS pkgsrc branches and 3.0 makes that a lot 
simpler, but given openssl history it seems prudent for us to go with it 
to avoid potential pain.

> To evaluate this, it would be really helpful if someone could do a bulk
> build, record the stats, and then swap in wip/openssl3 as if they were
> going to update but just not commit, and then do another bulk build, and
> see what marginal trouble there is.  This is your homework if you think
> it's crazy for me to even ask the question!

I've done a few builds with openssl3 in the past, and yesterday did 
another one with 3.0.10:

  https://github.com/NetBSD/pkgsrc/commit/5f98d0f2efa685bc113c0e1d73ba534c418ac52e
  https://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-bulk/2023/09/13/msg024259.html

Comparing it against the closest 1.1.1 build:

  https://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-bulk/2023/09/12/msg024252.html

is somewhat pointless as they aren't based on the same commit, but at 
least there's no huge fallout (the package count is in fact higher due 
to the librsvg fix).

There's also my most recent NetBSD 10 bulk build:

  https://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-bulk/2023/09/13/msg024258.html

Since that one started ruby30-base was removed.

> If you think I'm asking the wrong questions, or if we should stay on
> openssl1 (only) for the next year, please speak up.

Either way I'm probably going to commit 3.0.10 to my pkgsrc fork at some 
point soon, certainly before 2023Q4 as that will be my next LTS.

--
Jonathan Perkin   -   mnx.io   -   pkgsrc.smartos.org
Open Source Complete Cloud   www.tritondatacenter.com