| 1 |
Matthew Summers: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 12:59 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Dirkjan Ochtman: |
| 4 |
>>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl. |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> Some caveats have already been discovered: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So, libressl is really nowhere near ready for prime time or even late |
| 11 |
> night TV (perhaps the day time talk shows, but that is a stretch given |
| 12 |
> the PRNG situation). I think preparing a virtual and updating |
| 13 |
> dependent ebuilds for the explosion of replacements is grand, however |
| 14 |
> we should make it _very_ clear to everyone that issues exist that make |
| 15 |
> libressl unsafe for anything other than play time. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yep, it's pretty rough currently. Also, it seems a lot of upstreams |
| 20 |
(like python) rather want to wait until the libressl API gets somewhat |
| 21 |
stable before starting to throw patches around. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
But we can certainly start to introduce the virtual with |
| 24 |
dev-libs/openssl as the only provider. |
Archives