-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 09/30/2015 01:27 PM, hasufell wrote: > On 09/30/2015 01:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. >> <phajdan...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
.. >> Perhaps the in-between solution would be for forking upstreams >> to preserve the same symbol names as long as the APIs are >> identical, and change them when they are not. I don't really see >> that having any more impact on downstream consumers than silently >> changing the APIs and it would probably get rid of the symbol >> collision problem. >> > > Again: can you take that to libressl mailing list or start another > thread? > The way I see it this is relevant to the discussion at hand. Before implementing any system wide change to support LibreSSL, in order to avoid future issues, a proper cost/benefit analysis and discussion is in order. Do we have an overview of what functionality and other pros (hereunder security gains that is not fixed in OpenSSL) is gained by implementing global LibreSSL support? Or is this just increasing our maintenance, and security tracking, etc burdens without any strong benefits? - -- Kristian Fiskerstrand Public PGP key 0xE3EDFAE3 at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWC8eiAAoJECULev7WN52FAFIH/jDZBAvKM7ZjlZt2+MA1tQ7W HzMzqHlD5OwHUkeI58nBLtvgMzptIRvS0AWmmYfPFy3Gt9fCTIh7wcoNN1JJm69l q+WeMQy+ZLMB2YtehoZWRpz6aVXcCXyA0h0ENl4Rt3NP1UX7YWgLJ7ZE2tcBhqQf /GZBKDFjSAw92XJKc8vsiQrG3tl53Ub87bfMoqN0mZ0b0bAJlix5q8x/0mDZ0/4Q fpAg2z0VLD2xQybtPwrNFn2vC19zM9DgqIxpYzxrzilwTMdD0BmcwwqpmLmKsCK6 RsBL+utM+gGmBPiYHBmCCim3KudNt91XBBCpKu/VQpGlBjeusqPjRrKwDwfzIeE= =h8Ub -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
