Colin Watson schrieb:
> While there does exist a skeletal compatibility layer linked from the
> upstream wiki [1], the OpenSSL developers explicitly don't want to
> maintain this properly [2], and the OpenSSH developers say that it is
> "unversioned, incomplete, barely documented, and seems to be
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:26:06PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> I see two main forces determining which fork of a library will be used:
> either distributions themselves will choose based on technical and other
> merits, or important applications will favor one of the forks, forcing
> the decision
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:26:06PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:21:10PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:05:30AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> despite fears of OpenBSD only caring about themselves, I have found that
> it is easier to compile LibreSSL
On 2017-10-17 11:51:19 [+0100], Colin Watson wrote:
> > I didn't even figure out if they want to alter their code or not.
>
>
> https://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-dev/2017-October/036370.html
let me check.
> I don't see any benefit in conducting a discussion in which we assume
>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:21:10PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:05:30AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > despite fears of OpenBSD only caring about themselves, I have found that
> > it is easier to compile LibreSSL for various platforms (even non-POSIX
> > ones) than Open
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:07:43PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> My understanding is that the libressl project does not support a release for
> the length of a debian release cycle, and does not commit to API stability
> for debian-cycle periods.
The LibreSSL website currently says one year.
One
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:00:50PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-10-16 17:29:09 [+0100], Colin Watson wrote:
> > While there does exist a skeletal compatibility layer linked from the
> > upstream wiki [1], the OpenSSL developers explicitly don't want to
> > maintain this properl
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:05:30AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
despite fears of OpenBSD only caring about themselves, I have found that
it is easier to compile LibreSSL for various platforms (even non-POSIX
ones) than OpenSSL. And that APIs might be broken more easily by LibreSSL
is ridiculous, as
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:29:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > * Package name: libressl
[...]
> Furthermore, the OpenSSL maintainers in Debian now want to drop their
> 1.0 compatibility packages, which the Debian OpenSSH packages rely on.
> I can't exactly fault them for wanting to reduce t
On 2017-10-16 17:29:09 [+0100], Colin Watson wrote:
> [I won't quote everything, but people replying to this should probably
> read the bug log in the BTS first.]
It was a lot to read and "they" stumbled over details.
> While there does exist a skeletal compatibility layer linked from the
> upstr
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:29:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Out of all of these, I think the option that I think has the fewest
downsides overall is to convince people to package LibreSSL, but I'm not
myself in a position to contribute to that effort.
Does anyone have thoughts or other options
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:29:09PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> While there does exist a skeletal compatibility layer linked from the
> upstream wiki [1], the OpenSSL developers explicitly don't want to
> maintain this properly [2], and the OpenSSH developers say that it is
> "unversioned, incom
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:06:27AM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> * Package name: libressl
> Version : 2.0.0
> Upstream Author : The OpenBSD project, the OpenSSL project et al.
> * URL : http://www.libressl.org/
> * License : BSD, OpenSSL, SSLeay, Public Domain.
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
