Re: OpenSSL in the FreeBSD base system / FreeBSD 14

On 24 Apr 2023, at 16:39, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 8:33 AM Charlie Li <vishwin@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Ed Maste wrote:
> > The problem is that we have conflicting constraints: OpenSSL 1.1.1 is
> > EOL shortly after 14.0 releases, and there are ports that do not yet
> > build against OpenSSL 3. I am not sure how much will be broken if we
> > update the base system to OpenSSL 3 but leave the privatelib aside
> > (i.e., have the base system provide OpenSSL 3 to ports).
> >
> OpenSSL 3 is a major, even larger than 1.1, API/ABI change. Quite a bit
> of stuff will be broken today. The effort here has to include working
> with as many port upstreams as possible to force the issue, as they may
> not hold OpenSSL 3 compatibility to be an immediate priority; patching
> ports on a large scale like this is not sustainable.
> 
> So why can't ports like this use 1.1 as a port rather than from base?

Trouble starts when you attempt to mix openssl 1.1 and 3.0 libraries
(both dynamic and static!) in dependent ports, because symbol names will
collide.

This is not an easily solvable problem, apart from the fact that an
openssl 1.1 port would have the same basic issue that openssl 1.1 in the
base system has: it will no longer be supported (at least without paying
up) after $CUTOFF_DATE.

The rest of the open source world has exactly the same problem of
course, so either all abandoned openssl-1.x using programs have to be
completely ditched, or you have to keep openssl-1.x on life support
somehow. Guess what will happen. :)

I think it is likely that this will be a repeat of the Python 2.x
debacle, e.g. against better judgement everybody will just keep on
using the deprecated version for years, and it may never fade out
completely...

-Dimitry