[OE-core] [pyro][PATCH] openssl: Update from 1.0.2n to 1.0.2p

[Andre McCurdy]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:39 PM Robert Joslyn
<robert.joslyn at redrectangle.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-31 at 20:31 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:54 PM Robert Joslyn
> > <robert.joslyn at redrectangle.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Refresh parallel.patch.
> > >
> > > Remove duplicate LIC_FILES_CHKSUM assignment.
> > >
> > > License-Update: Updated copyright years
> >
> > Normally a backport to pyro would be merged to sumo and rocko first,
> > so this would be done in steps:
> >
> > 1) Backport the existing patches to update 1.0.2n -> 1.0.2o from
> > rocko to pyro
> >
> > 2) Update rocko from 1.0.2o -> 1.0.2p, ideally by backporting patches
> > already in sumo. Note however that the update to 1.0.2p in sumo comes
> > with a lot of non-critical cleanups and it's questionable how far
> > back
> > we want to port those, so a new patch which just updates the version
> > might be preferred?
> >
> > 3) Backport whatever 1.0.2o -> 1.0.2p patches are merged to rocko
> > into pyro.
>
> I debated how much to backport from sumo, and thought I would try to
> minimize the changes to the rocko and pyro branches. The two patches I
> sent are pretty much the minimum required to get 1.0.2p working with
> rocko and pyro.
>
> It's probably easiest to take what's on sumo directly back to rocko and
> then pyro. I'll test that tomorrow and resend the patches if there's no
> objection to taking the other small fixes. I have a feeling trying to
> pull out small cleanups is more trouble than it's worth (for my
> purposes at least), but I'll do so if that's preferred.

As the author of many of the cleanups I would tend to favour including
them in any backport... but I'm not the maintainer of the stable
branches.