On 09/30/2015 08:35 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > 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? >
Such questions are better off at the openbsd-tech mailing list. Please continue such discussions there, including voicing your opinion about the course of LibreSSL which I cannot change, so rants and questions about that are slightly offtopic.
