On 9/29/15 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > The thing is that I think the libressl authors are shooting themselves > in the feet. When upstreams do this sort of thing they think they're > making the upgrade path easier by not changing their symbol names. In > reality, they're making the upgrade path harder by preventing > side-by-side adoption of the new solution.
Yeah, it's not that obvious how to handle it best. Curious - how would the alternative look like? My reasoning is that if upstream changes symbols, that makes it easy for a distro to install it side-by-side. However, for anything to use such modified lib, they'd need to change all callers to use the alternative function names, wouldn't they? Paweł
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
