| 1 |
Dirkjan Ochtman: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Some caveats have already been discovered: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> http://devsonacid.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/how-compatible-is-libressl/ |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Cheers, |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Dirkjan |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The Werror thing is fixed in the ebuild. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The next release is now signed and should enter the tree in the near |
| 17 |
future, along with the virtual ebuilds. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So for people who want to help, I'd propose the following procedure: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
1) Testing: https://github.com/gentoo/libressl (should already work with |
| 22 |
'layman -a libressl') |
| 23 |
It contains dummy openssl ebuilds so the virtuals are not yet needed. It |
| 24 |
also contains a portable version of the signify tool (to verify the |
| 25 |
libressl tarballs), patched wget and patched openssh with patch from Hanno. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'd suggest to focus testing there, so we don't duplicate work. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
2) depending on how big the fallout is we have to decide whether to add |
| 30 |
libressl to ~arch or masked later and even have to decide whether adding |
| 31 |
a virtual/openssl right now makes any sense. We'll shoot ourselves in |
| 32 |
the foot if we add the virtual now and realize later that it doesn't |
| 33 |
work out. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
3) Depending on 2) add virtual/openssl and dev-libs/libressl to the tree |
| 36 |
and start converting the tree (~arch ebuilds with simple openssl atoms |
| 37 |
can probably be fixed with a script, see |
| 38 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508750#c23). Stable arch ebuilds |
| 39 |
should probably be fixed by their respective maintainers. We should send |
| 40 |
out a dev-announce too then. |
Archives