| 1 |
Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > I think the three main ways forward from here would be to either: |
| 3 |
> > > |
| 4 |
> > > 1. Keep LibreSSL for indefinite time (possibly masked) |
| 5 |
> > > 2. Eventually move LibreSSL to libressl overlay. |
| 6 |
> > > 3. Eventually remove LibreSSL. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > 4. A libressl or libressl-libtls ebuild installs only libtls. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> dev-libs/libretls already does that. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
dev-libs/libretls doesn't install a libressl libtls. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This thread is obviously about how the libressl implementation remains |
| 15 |
in use. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It's clear now that you want to hinder that in Gentoo at any cost to |
| 18 |
the community, but that's not useful, so please take a step back unless |
| 19 |
you are actually going to be constructive. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
My proposition 4. (which I suggested already earlier - you shouldn't |
| 22 |
have ignored it) is obviously not about having any libtls provider in |
| 23 |
the tree, but to model reality accurately and ensure that libretls is |
| 24 |
the primary and prefered libtls provider, since it is literally the |
| 25 |
libtls upstream. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It is important to me that you can choose dev-libs/libretls instead of |
| 28 |
having any libretls code on your systems, but I reject you forcing that |
| 29 |
choice of yours on everyone else. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
//Peter |
Archives