| 1 |
On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> The thing is that I think the libressl authors are shooting themselves |
| 3 |
> in the feet. When upstreams do this sort of thing they think they're |
| 4 |
> making the upgrade path easier by not changing their symbol names. In |
| 5 |
> reality, they're making the upgrade path harder by preventing |
| 6 |
> side-by-side adoption of the new solution. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Yeah, it's not that obvious how to handle it best. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Curious - how would the alternative look like? My reasoning is that if |
| 11 |
upstream changes symbols, that makes it easy for a distro to install it |
| 12 |
side-by-side. However, for anything to use such modified lib, they'd |
| 13 |
need to change all callers to use the alternative function names, |
| 14 |
wouldn't they? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Paweł |
Archives