On Wed, 2022-05-18 at 16:37 -0500, Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote: > > From: "Matt Caswell" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: openssl 1.1.1 minor patches to build on SCO OpenServer > > 5.0.7 > > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > The patch in s_socket.c is likely to be acceptable. It looks > > reasonable > > to me, it may well be useful on other systems and can probably be > > described as a bug fix. > > > > The other changes require the new OPENSSL_SYS_SCO5 define and are > > essentially adding support for a new platform into the codebase. > > > > We have a couple of policies which describe acceptable changes in > > this area. > > > > Our platform policy says: > > > > "Support for a new platform should only be added if it is being > > adopted > > as a primary, secondary or community platform." > > > > https://www.openssl.org/policies/platformpolicy.html > > > > Essentially this means that someone has to volunteer to be a > > community > > maintainer of the platform moving forwards, i.e. they are the > > contact > > point for any bug fixes/problems that may arise on that platform. > > You > > don't need to be a committer on the project to be a platform > > maintainer. > > Interestingly, openssl 1.1.1o already has support for this platform, > but > it is not up-to-date since I need these patches: With that on mind I'd say we could treat this as a bug fix. > > This is interesting, and I suppose subject to interpretation > differences. > My patches entirely involve configuration changes. I.e. They ONLY > affect > pre-processor directives. In my opinion, pre-processor directives > are > not code. I suppose this response means the project interprets code > as > source code files? If so, then a clarification of terms in the > documents > linked might be in order. We interpret any changes in the .c, .h, and similar files as source code changes. > > As far as a community maintainership goes, in my current employment > situation, > it is in my interest to build openssl releases as they come out. As > long as > maintainership is primarily related to build issues, I don't really > have a > problem with doing this. The main concern I would have is that I do > not have > an in-depth knowledge of the openssl code-base, so if maintainership > involves > code issues that pretty much any platform might encounter because the > code is > the same for them, I cannot claim to commensurate experience along > those lines. Yeah, this is mostly about build fixes. Of course if there is a run- time issue reported that affects only your platform we would have to cooperate on the fix there as well, but I would not expect many of these. -- Tomáš Mráz, OpenSSL
