Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed?
From: "Dr. Matthias St. Pierre" <Matthias.St.Pierre () ncp-e com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 07:59:17 +0000
Well, next time I touch the code I’ll certainly check whether it compiles with LIBGCRYPT_AEAD #undefined to spare you from another fix 😉 Matthias From: Wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org<mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org>> On Behalf Of Joakim Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 11:46 PM To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev () wireshark org<mailto:wireshark-dev () wireshark org>> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed? Hi, yep, RHEL7 is still widely used, sadly :/ I have been correcting this ifdef a couple of times now.. https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commits/master?search=LIBGCRYPT_AEAD This since my dev env has not yet seen the light of RHEL8 //Joakim On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 19:43, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre <Matthias.St.Pierre () ncp-e com<mailto:Matthias.St.Pierre () ncp-e com>> wrote:
The minimum version being stuck at 1.5.0 is, I believe, almost entirely due to RHEL/CentOS 7 being stuck at 1.5.3 (https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/wikis/Development/Support_library_version_tracking#libgcrypt)
It's a widely used enough distribution, still scheduled for 3 more years of support, that I think that for now the current approach of supporting it is reasonable. We do warn about it in strong terms. (The RH package may have some backports of features from later versions, but I haven't looked into it.)
If at some point we want to drop RHEL 7 (and in a similar fashion, SUSE Enterprise Server 12), there's a number of packages whose version could be bumped, as seen on that page.
John Thacker
Thanks for your reply, which crossed mine. Well, if it's still widely used by RHEL/CentOS 7, then there is nothing I can do about it at the moment. Matthias ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org<mailto:wireshark-dev () wireshark org>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org<mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org>?subject=unsubscribe
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description:
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed? Dr. Matthias St. Pierre (Jul 12)
- Re: Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed? Pascal Quantin (Jul 12)
- Re: Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed? John Thacker (Jul 12)
- Re: Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed? Dr. Matthias St. Pierre (Jul 12)
- Re: Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed? Joakim (Jul 18)
- Re: Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed? Dr. Matthias St. Pierre (Jul 19)
- Re: Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed? John Thacker (Jul 12)
- Re: Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed? Pascal Quantin (Jul 12)
- Re: Can the legacy HAVE_LIBGCRYPT_AEAD check be removed? Dr. Matthias St. Pierre (Jul 12)