On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 23:31:39 +0000 "Robin H. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So apparently 14.2% of dependencies allow any slot of OpenSSL which is > > most likely wrong, and 1.4% explicitly claim that's what the package > > wants. This could be valid only if e.g. the package supported multiple > > ABIs of OpenSSL libraries and used dlopen() with a few possible SONAMEs > > which I honestly doubt any of those packages is doing. > > There's a valid case for accepting ANY openssl: tooling that explicitly > calls the binary tools provided by OpenSSL, and does link or dlopen any > of the openssl libraries. The binary-only SLOTs don't include those tools because they would conflict. Library-only is a more accurate term. -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer
pgppnuqvl8hro.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
