| 1 |
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 23:31:39 +0000 |
| 2 |
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > So apparently 14.2% of dependencies allow any slot of OpenSSL which is |
| 5 |
> > most likely wrong, and 1.4% explicitly claim that's what the package |
| 6 |
> > wants. This could be valid only if e.g. the package supported multiple |
| 7 |
> > ABIs of OpenSSL libraries and used dlopen() with a few possible SONAMEs |
| 8 |
> > which I honestly doubt any of those packages is doing. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> There's a valid case for accepting ANY openssl: tooling that explicitly |
| 11 |
> calls the binary tools provided by OpenSSL, and does link or dlopen any |
| 12 |
> of the openssl libraries. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The binary-only SLOTs don't include those tools because they would |
| 15 |
conflict. Library-only is a more accurate term. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
James Le Cuirot (chewi) |
| 19 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives