Replace rustls-native-certs with rustls-platform-verifier #1734
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Looks like upstream is missing FreeBSD support :( |
djc
approved these changes
Jan 4, 2024
Ralith
force-pushed
the
platform-verifier
branch
from
e23fd4b
to
acca7f7
Compare
|
FreeBSD support will be included in the next upstream release, which will probably also bump to rustls 0.22. |
@Ralith We're planning to do a rustls-platform-verifier 0.1.1 release w/ FreeBSD support and Rustls 0.21 separate from the 0.2.0 release with Rustls 0.22. There's an important consumer of the library that will be on Rustls 0.21 for a while so the 0.1.x release tree will be maintained for a decent amount of time. |
Ralith
force-pushed
the
platform-verifier
branch
from
acca7f7
to
9e5b01e
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
rustls-platform-verifier doesn't seem to support rustls 0.22 yet, so we might want to hold off on this in the hopes of not complicating #1715. Still, long-term, this seems like a safer default to promote.