| 1 |
On 09/30/2015 10:11 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/30/2015 08:35 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> The thing is that I think the libressl authors are shooting themselves |
| 5 |
>>> in the feet. When upstreams do this sort of thing they think they're |
| 6 |
>>> making the upgrade path easier by not changing their symbol names. In |
| 7 |
>>> reality, they're making the upgrade path harder by preventing |
| 8 |
>>> side-by-side adoption of the new solution. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Yeah, it's not that obvious how to handle it best. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Curious - how would the alternative look like? My reasoning is that if |
| 13 |
>> upstream changes symbols, that makes it easy for a distro to install it |
| 14 |
>> side-by-side. However, for anything to use such modified lib, they'd |
| 15 |
>> need to change all callers to use the alternative function names, |
| 16 |
>> wouldn't they? |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Such questions are better off at the openbsd-tech mailing list. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
correcting: the libressl mailing list, also see |
| 22 |
http://www.libressl.org/mail.html |
Archives