| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Paul B. Henson <henson@×××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> They're pretty much decided on allowing both openssl and libressl to be |
| 4 |
> installed concurrently and for a given application to use one or the |
| 5 |
> other. The specific method for that packaging system is what they call a |
| 6 |
> prefix; basically instead of /usr/pkg/lib/libssl it would be |
| 7 |
> /usr/pkg/libressl/lib/libssl, and packages that needed it would get the |
| 8 |
> right magic flags for the headers and libraries to be found. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
WTF. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If you're going to fork a library, and don't intend to keep the |
| 14 |
packages API-compatible, then change the filenames. What is so hard |
| 15 |
about this? LIbressl was even an outside fork, so it didn't come with |
| 16 |
any of the baggage of "we're the real libssl team" or whatever. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Sure, we can do the USE=libressl route like we did with libav, but |
| 19 |
since this is still new would it make more sense to just rename the |
| 20 |
libressl files so that they can still go in /usr/lib but without being |
| 21 |
called libssl? Then any package that wants to use them will need to |
| 22 |
have their build logic changed accordingly. They aren't drop-in |
| 23 |
replacements for each other anyway, as much as people would wish they |
| 24 |
were, so we should resist the urge to pretend that they are. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives