Matt Turner wrote: > > I think many mails in this thread suffer from some tunnel vision, expecting > > that a libressl ebuild in the tree must continue to work exactly like the > > openssl ebuild - I'm saying to stop that but do keep a libressl ebuild.
To clarify, by "stop that" I mean "stop efforts to make libressl a drop-in replacement". > If they suffer from tunnel vision, it's because the intersection of > "people who care about libressl" and "people who have patches in > gentoo.git" is the empty set. Tunnel vision refered not to people but what a libressl ebuild delivers, which you seems to have turned into an ad hominem against me? Who will do actual work is a separate question, of course if noone wants to then nothing matters, but it seems that some people /do/ care about libressl; I suppose the 61 patches mgorny found were committed by someone. If you were somehow trying to belittle /me/ then it's certainly true that I'm not a Gentoo developer, but there are some patches by me in gentoo.git. > I think we all understand your points: libressl could be kept in-tree > and allow people to play with it. Unfortunately that requires much > more work than removing it, and I haven't seen evidence that you're > prepared to contribute to the required effort. > > I don't think you're going to convince a bunch of people with little > interest in libressl per se to continue allowing the extra burden > unless you do the work that's needed to keep it in-tree (e.g., to > allow it to be installed beside openssl). You seem to not understand my point at all. As I've written I (like others) argue against "continue allowing extra burden" and I've suggested and offered to help with one approach to keep a libressl ebuild in the tree. //Peter
