On 09/30/2015 10:11 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/30/2015 08:35 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: >> On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> The thing is that I think the libressl authors are shooting themselves >>> in the feet. When upstreams do this sort of thing they think they're >>> making the upgrade path easier by not changing their symbol names. In >>> reality, they're making the upgrade path harder by preventing >>> side-by-side adoption of the new solution. >> >> Yeah, it's not that obvious how to handle it best. >> >> Curious - how would the alternative look like? My reasoning is that if >> upstream changes symbols, that makes it easy for a distro to install it >> side-by-side. However, for anything to use such modified lib, they'd >> need to change all callers to use the alternative function names, >> wouldn't they? >> > > Such questions are better off at the openbsd-tech mailing list.
correcting: the libressl mailing list, also see http://www.libressl.org/mail.html
