Re: the path to openssl3

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Thomas Klausner <wiz%gatalith.at@localhost> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:02:59PM +0100, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
>> 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.
>
> They call it LTS, but they only promise one year longer than for 3.1,
> and 3.1 is the official latest stable release. So for pkgsrc, I'd go
> for 3.1.

I weakly (because of low openssl-fu) lean to 3.1.  I expect we will be
moving to 3.2 sooner rather than later.  The real question is if there
is API compat, in that programs that build against 3.0 will build
against 3.1 and 3.2.

As for LTS, pkgsrc doesn't do LTS.  That's a huge can of worms.  jperkin
is of course welcome to maintain a friendly fork that does it, but I
don't want us to do things that aren't aligned with each branch being
the best/only version as it happens.  I usually expect LTS things to lag
but get fixes, and thus useful for people that want to run old software.

I'm unclear on the timeline for the pkgsrc LTS fork in terms of support,
and on how that is handled as many things we package have new major
versions and do not support the old ones.  It seems like a tremendous
amount of work to keep up, requiring dozens of paid staff.