| 1 |
On Mon, 2020-12-28 at 23:26 +0100, m1027 wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've been kindly asked by a gentoo dev to send my two pence in here: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> peter: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Michał Górny wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > LibreSSL users, does LibreSSL today have any benefit over |
| 9 |
> > > OpenSSL? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Yes, at least two: |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > [...] |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > B. It brings its own TLS API, a unique feature which by itself |
| 16 |
> > warrants |
| 17 |
> > the package. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Yeah, since openssl and libressl cannot be installed at the same |
| 20 |
> time, I wonder what will be the future of libtls? To recall, it is |
| 21 |
> a "a new TLS library, designed to make it easier to write foolproof |
| 22 |
> applications" (see libressl.org). I've been using it for some time. |
| 23 |
> It's great, and it is part of libressl. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
As noted in another fork of this thread, libtls is now provided |
| 26 |
by dev-libs/libretls which works against OpenSSL. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Another thing: Besides libressl there are boringssl and others. Even |
| 29 |
> if still not the case (?), having virtual alternatives should in |
| 30 |
> theory help keeping polished interfaces. If for whatever reason this |
| 31 |
> not the case in practise, I believe dropping the alternatives should |
| 32 |
> be worse. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I don't think these alternatives were ever meant to be used system- |
| 35 |
wide. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Best regards, |
| 39 |
Michał Górny |
Archives