Re: [gentoo-dev] LibreSSL import plan

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:22 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> 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 I don't have
one to offer myself.  I don't really like what has happened with
kerberos and ffmpeg and mysql, and I'm not looking forward to what is
going to happen with libressl.  I fear that as with the other
situations we'll end up with one solution used by 99% of systems, and
another solution used by 1% of systems, and no happy compromise that
lets people mix and match software that relies on either.  That really
doesn't strike me as the Gentoo way.

However, unless people stop promoting and/or using competing solutions
that share the same namespaces we're going to have these problems, and
we have to live with reality and not pretend that it doesn't exist.

If somebody can come up with a better solution, I'm all ears.  What
hasufell proposes isn't any worse than what we already have.  It just
fails to be any better.

As was pointed out there are some fundamental issues with just trying
to slot something like this unless you go patching the living
daylights out of the library and everything that uses it.

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 path harder by preventing
side-by-side adoption of the new solution.

-- 
Rich