Bug 117851

Summary: Squid SRPM contains what appears to be an unnecessary SSL patch
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Reuben Farrelly <reuben-redhatbugzilla>
Component: squidAssignee: Jay Fenlason <fenlason>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: jfeeney
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: squid-2.5.STABLE5-2 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-04-05 21:24:59 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Reuben Farrelly 2004-03-09 10:12:16 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

Description of problem:


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
2.5.STABLE5-1

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
Rebuild squid from SRPM

Additional info:

Why does this patch (top few lines of squid-2.5.STABLE3-build.patch)
exist in the squid SRPM?

I can build squid-2.5 succesfully without it, and if it is in fact
needed then it ought to be pushed upstream to the official squid source:

--- squid-2.5.STABLE3/src/ssl_support.c.build   2003-02-08
09:53:15.000000000 -0500
+++ squid-2.5.STABLE3/src/ssl_support.c 2003-06-30 11:18:12.000000000
-0400
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@
 #endif
 #ifdef SSL_OP_NON_EXPORT_FIRST
     {
-       "NON_EXPORT_FIRST", SSL_OP_NON_EXPORT_FIRST
+       "NON_EXPORT_FIRST", 0
     },
 #endif
 #ifdef SSL_OP_CIPHER_SERVER_PREFERENCE

---------------------

There appears to be no comment on it in bugzilla nor %Changelog of the
SRPM.

I forwarded it onto one of the core squid developers and his comment
follows:

"I don't understand this patch. It kills the NON_EXPORT_FIRST ssl
option making it a no-op.

The code already deals with the situation where the SSL library does
not have this option.

Why is this patch needed? Have not seen any need of it during all the
years while the SSL support in Squid has been developed on RedHat boxes..

Regards
Henrik"

Comment 1 Jay Fenlason 2004-04-05 21:24:59 UTC
I removed the questionable part from the patch for the latest rawhide
squid rpm