On 10/1/15 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/09/15 03:29 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 9/30/15 12:18 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: On 30/09/15 07:42
AM, hasufell wrote:
* libressl has to conflict with openssl
Right now libressl exports man
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 09:25:42 -0400 Brian Evans wrote:
> On 9/30/2015 5:40 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> > 2. Some old features are removed:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreSSL#Added_features Most notably
> > SSLv3 and MD5 support cancelled, while they are indeed not secure,
> > some app
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/09/15 03:29 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 9/30/15 12:18 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: On 30/09/15 07:42
> AM, hasufell wrote:
* libressl has to conflict with openssl
> Right now libressl exports many of the same symbols as openssl
> rig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/30/2015 5:40 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> 2. Some old features are removed:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreSSL#Added_features Most notably
> SSLv3 and MD5 support cancelled, while they are indeed not secure,
> some apps are likely still
Hi,
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:58:34 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Anthony G. Basile
> wrote:
> > @rich0. Just a side comment. You said somewhere that maybe apache will
> > choose openssl and postfix libressl and then we'll be in trouble. No. The
> > incompatibilit
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
> Yes you could use symbol versioning, and you can do the side by side by
> renaming the library but that's a real pita for us since we'd have to hack
> build systems to link against the correct library name. Ths should have
> been done
On 9/30/15 12:18 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/09/15 07:42 AM, hasufell wrote:
* libressl has to conflict with openssl
Right now libressl exports many of the same symbols as openssl
right? What if it didn't -- that is, we forced a symver map
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/09/15 09:11 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Suppose apache uses libfoo and libbar. Libfoo switches to
> libressl, and libbar sticks with openssl. That is going to
> create a mess no matter what you do with isolating their
> namespaces, because y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/09/15 07:42 AM, hasufell wrote:
> * libressl has to conflict with openssl
Right now libressl exports many of the same symbols as openssl
right? What if it didn't -- that is, we forced a symver map with a
libressl prefix on all symbols? That
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:22:40 +0200 hasufell wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 02:10 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 09/30/2015 01:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> >> I think it was fair to pause to see if somebody could come up with
> >> a better solution that allows co-existence, but absent that I
On 09/30/2015 02:10 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 01:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> I think it was fair to pause to see if somebody could come up with
>> a better solution that allows co-existence, but absent that I
>> don't see any benefit from keeping libressl out of the tr
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> On 09/30/2015 01:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> I think it was fair to pause to see if somebody could come up with
>> a better solution that allows co-existence, but absent that I
>> don't see any benefit from keeping libressl ou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/30/2015 01:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand
> wrote:
>>
>> The way I see it this is relevant to the discussion at hand.
>
> Admittedly it is a bit tangential, but it didn't seem worth
> for
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> The way I see it this is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Admittedly it is a bit tangential, but it didn't seem worth forking
the thread over. Certainly I'm not going to invent my own mailing
list and post it there, and then po
On 09/30/2015 01:29 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> 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.
>>> wrote:
On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> ..
>
>>> Perhaps the in-between soluti
-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.
>> wrote:
>>> On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
..
>> Perhaps the in-between solution would be for f
On 09/30/2015 01:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:35 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
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:35 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 t
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 u
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 symbo
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 pat
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:43 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 03:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> [...]
>
> I have waited 9 days. I don't see a reason to wait another few weeks,
> just because you like to bikeshed a lot.
I don't recall suggesting that you should wait longer. That might be
why yo
On 09/29/2015 05:31 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:04:14 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
>> 2. slowly start migrating those ~550 packages with "libressl" USE flag
>> which is similar to gnutls USE flag.
>> There will be no virtual, because those don't give sufficient control
>> (lib
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:04:14 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> 2. slowly start migrating those ~550 packages with "libressl" USE flag
> which is similar to gnutls USE flag.
> There will be no virtual, because those don't give sufficient control
> (libressl and openssl are not ABI compatible).
If API compa
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:43 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 03:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > [...]
>
> I have waited 9 days. I don't see a reason to wait another few weeks,
> just because you like to bikeshed a lot.
>
> I honestly feel like you are wasting my time, unless _you_ can come up
On 09/29/2015 03:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> [...]
I have waited 9 days. I don't see a reason to wait another few weeks,
just because you like to bikeshed a lot.
I honestly feel like you are wasting my time, unless _you_ can come up
with a better solution and offer to do the actual work.
So far
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:22 AM, hasufell wrote:
> No useful comments, so I will proceed as outlined in the transition plan.
>
I don't think your attitude is going to win you a lot of friends, and
I don't think that we're better off for it.
That said, I've yet to hear a workable alternative, and
No useful comments, so I will proceed as outlined in the transition plan.
On 20.09.2015 18:57, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/20/2015 06:47 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
>> On 20.09.2015 16:26, hasufell wrote:
>>> On 09/20/2015 03:27 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
Please stop introducing further tree-wide changes regarding libressl.
>>>
>>> That's not possible, because in order to intr
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:57 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/20/2015 06:47 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
>> On 20.09.2015 16:26, hasufell wrote:
>>> On 09/20/2015 03:27 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
Please stop introducing further tree-wide changes regarding libressl.
>>>
>>> That's not possible, because in
On 09/20/2015 06:47 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> On 20.09.2015 16:26, hasufell wrote:
>> On 09/20/2015 03:27 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
>>> Please stop introducing further tree-wide changes regarding libressl.
>>
>> That's not possible, because in order to introduce the USE flag, we have
>> to break the
On 20.09.2015 16:26, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/20/2015 03:27 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
>> Please stop introducing further tree-wide changes regarding libressl.
>
> That's not possible, because in order to introduce the USE flag, we have
> to break the dep-graph on ~arch temporarily (for 'libressl' USE
On 9/20/15 8:59 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 07:49:24 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Alexis Ballier
wrote:
Yes, that's what gnome team is doing with gtk2 vs gtk3; however, I'm
not sure how much work it is. Only package I know of providing
differen
On 09/20/2015 03:27 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> Please stop introducing further tree-wide changes regarding libressl.
That's not possible, because in order to introduce the USE flag, we have
to break the dep-graph on ~arch temporarily (for 'libressl' USE flag
only ofc), because of circular deps.
I
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> On 19.09.2015 23:04, hasufell wrote:
>> Friends,
>>
>> I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many packages
>> left that don't compile OOTB and those can be patched (e.g. dev-lang/ruby).
>>
>> My idea would be:
>>
>> 1. import
On 19.09.2015 23:04, hasufell wrote:
> Friends,
>
> I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many packages
> left that don't compile OOTB and those can be patched (e.g. dev-lang/ruby).
>
> My idea would be:
>
> 1. import "dev-libs/libressl" (this will block dev-libs/openssl) and
>
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 07:49:24 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Alexis Ballier
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that's what gnome team is doing with gtk2 vs gtk3; however, I'm
> > not sure how much work it is. Only package I know of providing
> > different slots depending on what
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 7:14 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/20/2015 08:07 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:04:14 +0200 hasufell wrote:
>>> Friends,
>>>
>>> I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many packages
>>> left that don't compile OOTB and
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> Yes, that's what gnome team is doing with gtk2 vs gtk3; however, I'm
> not sure how much work it is. Only package I know of providing
> different slots depending on what it's built upon is webkit-gtk.
>
> I can't imagine every library usin
On 09/20/2015 08:07 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:04:14 +0200 hasufell wrote:
>> Friends,
>>
>> I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many packages
>> left that don't compile OOTB and those can be patched (e.g. dev-lang/ruby).
>>
>> My idea w
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 12:17:11 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:22:59 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > > My idea would be:
> > > >
> > > > 1. import "dev-libs/libressl" (this will block
> > > > dev-libs/openssl) and introduce the global USE flag "libressl"
> > > > with the f
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:22:59 +0200 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > My idea would be:
> > >
> > > 1. import "dev-libs/libressl" (this will block dev-libs/openssl) and
> > > introduce the global USE flag "libressl" with the following
> > > description:
> >
> > Please try to avoid such block, e.g. insta
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 09:07:09 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:04:14 +0200 hasufell wrote:
> > Friends,
> >
> > I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many
> > packages left that don't compile OOTB and those can be patched
> > (e.g. dev-lang/
Greetings,
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:04:14 +0200 hasufell wrote:
> Friends,
>
> I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many packages
> left that don't compile OOTB and those can be patched (e.g. dev-lang/ruby).
>
> My idea would be:
>
> 1. import "dev-libs/libressl" (this will blo
Friends,
I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many packages
left that don't compile OOTB and those can be patched (e.g. dev-lang/ruby).
My idea would be:
1. import "dev-libs/libressl" (this will block dev-libs/openssl) and
introduce the global USE flag "libressl" with the foll
45 matches
Mail list logo
