1 |
Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> I would like to discuss the possibility of discontinuing LibreSSL |
3 |
> support in Gentoo in favor of sticking with OpenSSL. |
4 |
|
5 |
I think that's a horrible idea, since Gentoo is about choice and this |
6 |
particular component is one of the most important in a system. |
7 |
|
8 |
But "support" can mean different things... |
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
> LibreSSL users, does LibreSSL today have any benefit over OpenSSL? |
12 |
|
13 |
Yes, at least two: |
14 |
|
15 |
A. It is a distinct implementation with probably /quite some/ stable |
16 |
compatibility, meaning that it will work perfectly fine as an |
17 |
alternative in many cases. |
18 |
|
19 |
B. It brings its own TLS API, a unique feature which by itself warrants |
20 |
the package. |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
> All this considered, provided that nobody is able to find a good reason |
24 |
> to use LibreSSL, I would like to propose that we stop patching |
25 |
> packages, discontinue support for it and last rite it. |
26 |
|
27 |
There is no reason at all to do all three of those atomically: |
28 |
|
29 |
1. Stop patching packages to make them build also against libressl |
30 |
2. Stop maintaining libressl-*.ebuild |
31 |
3. package.mask |
32 |
|
33 |
I think the complaint is really only about 1. and I can understand |
34 |
that the effort here outweighs the perceived benefit, that's fine, |
35 |
I don't think it's the responsibility of Gentoo developers to patch |
36 |
the world to build also against libressl. |
37 |
|
38 |
But as long as a single package can be built with either openssl or |
39 |
libressl without changes I consider it appropriate to maintain both |
40 |
libressl ebuilds and either virtual/openssl or another way to decide |
41 |
system-wide to use libressl instead of openssl. This remains very |
42 |
valuable especially for non-releng stages. |
43 |
|
44 |
More elaborate OpenSSL API users can (arguably should) just block on |
45 |
libressl instead of requiring patch work. |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
//Peter |