[Buildroot] No OpenSSL 1.1.x support in Qt 5.6.x.
James Grant
jamesg at zaltys.org
Sun Mar 3 06:00:22 UTC 2019
On 3/03/2019 10:13, Vadim Kochan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 09:27:37PM +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>>>>>>> "James" == James Grant<jamesg at zaltys.org> writes:
>> > On 1/03/2019 22:07, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
>> >>>>>>> "James" == James Grant<james.grant at jci.com> writes:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > There is no OpenSSL 1.1.x support in Qt 5.6.x and no-one appears to have back-ported support.
>> >>
>> >> >https://development.qt-project.narkive.com/RW4wxYXY/openssl-1-1-x-support-on-qt-5-6-5-9
>> >>
>> >> > I'm suggesting that for upcoming 2019.02 release that no attempt
>> >> > is made to build with SSL support for 5.6.
>> >>
>> >> > About to send patch to that effect.
>> >>
>> >> Yes. I was hoping that users of Qt 5.6 would step up and send patches,
>> >> but given that hasn't happened and 2019.02 is overdue, that is probably
>> >> the least bad solution.
>> >>
>> >> Looking forward to your patch.
>>
>> > Earliest version of a OpenSSL 1.1 patch for Qt 5.x I can find is
>> > against Qt 5.7 (LGPLv3). If you adapted / backported that for Qt 5.6
>> > there is an argument you're contaminating LGPLv2 Qt5.6 with LGPLv3
>> > code - defeating the whole point of keeping Qt 5.6 for many.
>>
>> Yes, agreed.
>>
>> > I got Qt 5.6 compiling with LibreSSL (which is keeping a level of
>> > OpenSSL 1.0 compatibility). Currently Qt is set to dlopen() OpenSSL
>> > at runtime (-openssl), changing this to shared linkage
>> > (-openssl-linked), then compiling only the SSL module with
>> > -fpermissive yields a working build. No actual code changes needed.
>>
>> > Is there really any benefit to dlopen() OpenSSL on an embedded system
>> > in any case?
>>
>> Not that I am aware of.
>>
>>
>> > The -fpermissive flag is needed to workaround 'const BIO_METHOD *'
>> > vs. 'BIO_METHOD *' changes to BIO_new() and BIO_s_mem() function
>> > signatures.
>>
>> > 'download' example successfully downloaded a file from a https site for me.
>>
>> > Should I put together a patch doing this? ... or is someone likely to
>> > come forward with a more comprehensive LGPLv2 licensed fix?
>>
>> If it is a simple patch, then please post it. It may be interesting for
>> users on 5.6.
>>
> Just FYI, I found only this patch:
>
> https://github.com/patch-exchange/openssl-1.1-transition/blob/master/qt5-qtbase/qtbase-5.7.0-openssl-1.1.patch
Also these, which look more complete:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/qt5-qtbase.git/plain/qt5-qtbase-5.9.1-openssl11.patch?h=f27
https://github.com/richmoore/qtbase/commits/openssl11
http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/Porting-to-OpenSSL-1-1-td68712.html
But LGPLv3 vs. LGPLv2 licensing is a potential issue with all these.
Regards,
James Grant.
More information about the buildroot
mailing list