openssl 3.0.3 minor patches to build on SCO OpenServer 5.0.7

[Tomas Mraz]

On Wed, 2022-05-18 at 16:37 -0500, Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote:
> > From: "Matt Caswell" <matt at openssl.org>
> > 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