Skip to content

Conversation

RafaelGSS
Copy link
Member

Updated OpenSSL dep to OpenSSL-3.0.3+quic using the maintenance guide.

Refs: https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2022-May/000223.html

RafaelGSS added 2 commits May 3, 2022 17:12
This updates all sources in deps/openssl/openssl by:
    $ git clone [email protected]:quictls/openssl.git
    $ cd openssl
    $ cd ../node/deps/openssl
    $ rm -rf openssl
    $ cp -R ../../../openssl openssl
    $ rm -rf openssl/.git* openssl/.travis*
    $ git add --all openssl
    $ git commit openssl
After an OpenSSL source update, all the config files need to be
regenerated and committed by:
    $ make -C deps/openssl/config
    $ git add deps/openssl/config/archs
    $ git add deps/openssl/openssl
    $ git commit
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/gyp

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. openssl Issues and PRs related to the OpenSSL dependency. labels May 3, 2022
@BethGriggs BethGriggs added the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label May 4, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the request-ci Add this label to start a Jenkins CI on a PR. label May 4, 2022
@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@richardlau
Copy link
Member

I think this and #42978 will conflict as they both touch the generated archs files. I suspect (but am not certain) that 33bc537 may mean we can no longer cherry-pick the openssl archs updates from master cleanly onto v17.x.

@yanovich
Copy link

yanovich commented May 6, 2022

@RafaelGSS, the differences between archs are cosmetic, and can be easily handled by *.gypi files. Why not use plain openssl headers with some -D flags in respective *.gypi files?

I used this to compare archs against linux-x86_64:

list=`ls deps/openssl/config/archs`;\
 for a in $list; do\
   diff -aur deps/openssl/config/archs/linux-x86_64/no-asm/include\
             deps/openssl/config/archs/$a/no-asm/include;\
 done

@RafaelGSS
Copy link
Member Author

I think this and #42978 will conflict as they both touch the generated archs files. I suspect (but am not certain) that 33bc537 may mean we can no longer cherry-pick the openssl archs updates from master cleanly onto v17.x.

If #42978 lands first, I can recreate this one for master and another one for v17.x then. WDYT?

@richardlau
Copy link
Member

I think this and #42978 will conflict as they both touch the generated archs files. I suspect (but am not certain) that 33bc537 may mean we can no longer cherry-pick the openssl archs updates from master cleanly onto v17.x.

If #42978 lands first, I can recreate this one for master and another one for v17.x then. WDYT?

SGTM. I suggest when you update/recreate the one for master check if the commits would cherry-pick cleanly to v17.x-staging. If they do then we don't need a v17.x specific PR (we can cherry-pick once the one on master lands), otherwise if there are conflicts we'll need to open a v17.x specific PR.

@RafaelGSS
Copy link
Member Author

Closing in favor of: #43022

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file. needs-ci PRs that need a full CI run. openssl Issues and PRs related to the OpenSSL dependency.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants