Matthew Summers: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 12:59 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Dirkjan Ochtman: >>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl. >>> >>> Some caveats have already been discovered: >>> > > So, libressl is really nowhere near ready for prime time or even late > night TV (perhaps the day time talk shows, but that is a stretch given > the PRNG situation). I think preparing a virtual and updating > dependent ebuilds for the explosion of replacements is grand, however > we should make it _very_ clear to everyone that issues exist that make > libressl unsafe for anything other than play time. >
Yep, it's pretty rough currently. Also, it seems a lot of upstreams (like python) rather want to wait until the libressl API gets somewhat stable before starting to throw patches around. But we can certainly start to introduce the virtual with dev-libs/openssl as the only provider.
