> ...
> |> Jun 7 23:41:16 outwall/smtpd[19222]: warning: run-time library \
> |> vs. compile-time header version mismatch: OpenSSL 3.3.0 may not \
> |> be compatible with OpenSSL 3.2.0
> ...
> |[.] OpenSSL 3.2.0 and 3.3.0
> |are ABI and API compatible. I would not expect to see a warning or
> |error. See <https://www.openssl.org/policies/general/versioning-policy.h\
> |tml>.
Some irrelevant background: that document covers OpenSSL 3.0 and
later (earlier releases use a different versioning scheme).
> |From the document under Minor Release:
> |
> | A minor release is indicated by changing the second number of the
> | version. A minor release can, and generally will, introduce new
> | features. However both the API and ABI will be preserved.
That same document says under "Patch release":
A patch release is indicated by changing the final number of
the version. A patch release will only contain bug and security
fixes. Both the API and ABI will remain compatible across patch
releases.
Note that only the text for "Patch release" promises that the "Both
the API and ABI will remain compatible".
Based on that, Postfix will not complain when the build-time and
run-time versions differ only in the Patch release number.
> This is postfix. I must say, out of my head i have no idea
> whether it has always been like that for minor releases for one,
> and whether that is also true for LibreSSL, and the other SSL
> libraries that postfix possibly works with. And AlpineLinux did
> use LibreSSL for some time in the past.
Postfix 3.6 and later prety-much require OpenSSL.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
