Deprecation

[Matthias St. Pierre]

On 14.02.20 08:24, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> I do not understand the pushback too much - Perhaps it could be
> resolved by proper explanation that deprecation does not mean a
> removal?
>
> Also even if some stuff deprecated in 3.0 is removed in 4.0, it does
> not necessarily mean that engines must be removed in the same release.
> They can continue to be supported (just deprecated) until 5.0 for
> example.
>
> I think that doing the deprecation as early as possible is better - it
> properly gives the signal that the engine interface is legacy and it
> will disappear at some point. It provides more time for 3rd party
> engines to transform into providers.
>

I agree with Tomas. In addition, I think it is high time to publish a definite timescale
for actually *removing* the older deprecated APIs, at least for the first three entries
in the list below:

     OPENSSL_NO_DEPRECATED_0_9_8  #
     OPENSSL_NO_DEPRECATED_1_0_0  #
     OPENSSL_NO_DEPRECATED_1_0_1  #

     OPENSSL_NO_DEPRECATED_1_0_2
     OPENSSL_NO_DEPRECATED_1_1_0
     OPENSSL_NO_DEPRECATED_1_1_1
     OPENSSL_NO_DEPRECATED_3_0

Because deprecation without removal is futile, it increases complexity of the code
instead of reducing it.

Matthias