| 1 |
On 01/23/15 00:56, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2015-01-23, o godz. 01:51:24 |
| 3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Regarding the last libav discussion I think we should also go with a |
| 6 |
>> "libressl" USE flag instead of creating a virtual that makes handling |
| 7 |
>> SUBSLOTs impossible. |
| 8 |
> If libressl and openssl would have matching ABIs, that wouldn't be |
| 9 |
> necessary and you could what virtual/libudev does, i.e. explicit |
| 10 |
> subslot deps. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
*if* I'm not sure they will even though that's the plan. If you look |
| 13 |
in the libressl overlay, you'll see lots of patches to make big ticket |
| 14 |
items like apache play nice with libressl. These patches involve things |
| 15 |
like |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
+#ifndef HAVE_SSL_CTX_USE_CERTIFICATE_CHAIN |
| 18 |
int SSL_CTX_use_certificate_chain(SSL_CTX *, char *, int, |
| 19 |
pem_password_cb *); |
| 20 |
+#else |
| 21 |
+ int _SSL_CTX_use_certificate_chain(SSL_CTX *, char *, int, |
| 22 |
pem_password_cb *); |
| 23 |
+#endif |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
which points to the differences in functions are being exported by the |
| 26 |
two. This makes me lean towards a USE flag which can also be tied to |
| 27 |
applying patches rather than a virtual which is better suited for simple |
| 28 |
drop in substitutions. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 33 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 34 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 35 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives