On Dec 24, 2015 7:31 PM, "Gilles Chehade" <gil...@poolp.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 07:17:12PM +0600, Denis Fateyev wrote: > > > > Well, you asked what distributions packagers thought, and I presented it > > from point of the specific distribution. There are always some issues, not > > only pure technical ones. > > > > I know and the reason I'm stating clearly my thoughts on this is so that > you and others understand our position. I get it that you don't have all > solutions at hands and that it might take time to solve them.
We currently have neither libressl requested nor specific policy for this very case. Due to possible name collision and such we need to settle and regulate lots of things, since something will definitely come out even though the changes might look trivial. > > I'll re-open libressl packaging discussion in Fedora right after Christmas, > > and in case of positive decision me or anybody else would support libressl > > pro bono. There is no schedule here. > > > > Understood but that would already be a great step for us, > Thanks I'm personally not against of libressl as any other library, too. But it always brings a lot of flame talks and concerns which packagers naturally try to avoid. Let's see how it will go this time :-) --- wbr, Denis.
