1 |
Matt Turner wrote: |
2 |
> > I think many mails in this thread suffer from some tunnel vision, expecting |
3 |
> > that a libressl ebuild in the tree must continue to work exactly like the |
4 |
> > openssl ebuild - I'm saying to stop that but do keep a libressl ebuild. |
5 |
|
6 |
To clarify, by "stop that" I mean "stop efforts to make libressl a |
7 |
drop-in replacement". |
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
> If they suffer from tunnel vision, it's because the intersection of |
11 |
> "people who care about libressl" and "people who have patches in |
12 |
> gentoo.git" is the empty set. |
13 |
|
14 |
Tunnel vision refered not to people but what a libressl ebuild delivers, |
15 |
which you seems to have turned into an ad hominem against me? |
16 |
|
17 |
Who will do actual work is a separate question, of course if noone wants |
18 |
to then nothing matters, but it seems that some people /do/ care about |
19 |
libressl; I suppose the 61 patches mgorny found were committed by someone. |
20 |
|
21 |
If you were somehow trying to belittle /me/ then it's certainly true that |
22 |
I'm not a Gentoo developer, but there are some patches by me in gentoo.git. |
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
> I think we all understand your points: libressl could be kept in-tree |
26 |
> and allow people to play with it. Unfortunately that requires much |
27 |
> more work than removing it, and I haven't seen evidence that you're |
28 |
> prepared to contribute to the required effort. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> I don't think you're going to convince a bunch of people with little |
31 |
> interest in libressl per se to continue allowing the extra burden |
32 |
> unless you do the work that's needed to keep it in-tree (e.g., to |
33 |
> allow it to be installed beside openssl). |
34 |
|
35 |
You seem to not understand my point at all. |
36 |
|
37 |
As I've written I (like others) argue against "continue allowing extra burden" |
38 |
and I've suggested and offered to help with one approach to keep a libressl |
39 |
ebuild in the tree. |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
//Peter |