![mumble 1.2.19 mumble 1.2.19](https://apps24.org/images/stories/flexicontent/item_783_field_20/l_mumble_02.jpg)
The question here is, what is more important? I don't understand that, version numbers are mostly arbitrary, so what does it matter, if its 1.3.1 or 1.4 or 2.5? So thats important to keep, but not updating the "most important" part.
#Mumble 1.2.19 Patch#
I hope and patch releases should NEVER drop support for a platform, even if EOL. Once again I wonder if thats also your approach at work. ĮOL does not necessarily mean there are issues. Yeah very plausibel by using an openssl version from 2017 ?. I saw that in the completely outdated openssl version.īut we do value stability and not taking in unnecessary risks. We do what we reasonably can and what makes sense. And a change to OpenSSL 1.0.2u is not trivial?.Why then can't the static server build for linux be using openssl 1.1.1? Is a new API the problem? (and there is no compatibility?)ĭoes not seem to be the case, because why can I then build mumble against OpenSSL 1.1.1f?.And don't argue with the "dynamic library"-situation on distros, that is out of your hands, but this is directly in your of what you want is trivial.Īnd am I understading correctly that mumble could just use openssl v.1.1.1 (on windows builds) right now?īecause #3053 indicates to me, that it is not such a big problem.īut maybe I'm wrong, a little detail would be useful to better understand the situation. You put all users who either communicate with users of old openssl versions or use servers that use old openssl versions at potential risk.Windows XP is only used by ~1% of users (according to wikipedia ).(and don't give me "support for super old distros" as an explanation, they can use their super outdated packages if they want to) And why is the static server build for linux not using the newest openssl?.And am I understading correctly that mumble could just use openssl v.1.1.1 (on windows builds) right now?.
![mumble 1.2.19 mumble 1.2.19](https://linux-cdn.softpedia.com/screenshots/Mumble_6.jpg)
So you prefer delivering EOL (and by now extremly outdated) openssl software (which is crucial, because encryption is one of the most important parts), to support an OS that is EOL for 6(!) years?
#Mumble 1.2.19 update#
Mumble can already be compiled with OpenSSL 1.1, but doing that for 1.3.1 would require us to update Qt as well, dropping support for Windows XP.