Open
Conversation
|
|
||
| #define SSL_MAX_CERT_KEY_PAIRS 12 | ||
|
|
||
| #if OPENSSL_API_LEVEL < 40000 |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The patch looks good. I'm wondering about LibreSSL though. Do you happen to know whether this could break LibreSSL? Should we move the condition to do a CMake tests instead?
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fedora Rawhide (which will become Fedora 45 in about 6 months) just moved from openssl 3.x to 4.x. A number of packages now fail to build, including swipl. This PR is my attempt at addressing the issue. Two changes in openssl 4.x are responsible:
constThis PR leaves the code able to build with both openssl 3.x and 4.x. I am happy to make changes to this PR if you don't like the style or the approach.
Also note the existence of an
ASN1_TIME_to_tmfunction, but it isn't clear to me that it meets the needs ofunify_asn1_time, so I didn't use it.