On 01/26/2015 01:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
>>> maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep
>>> filenames the same/etc suc
On Jan 26, 2015 11:01 AM, "Peter Stuge" wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>
> > there wouldn't be an /etc/init.d, but rather a bazillion
> > /pkg/guid/etc/init.d directories or something like that
>
> I guess an abstraction akin to pkg-config could solve the problem.
>
Sort of. You can't call a se
Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
> >> maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep
> >> filenames the same/etc such that the packages collide in their
> >> recommended configurations.
> >
> > Some people do it on
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
>> maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep
>> filenames the same/etc such that the packages collide in their
>> recommende
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
> maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep
> filenames the same/etc such that the packages collide in their
> recommended configurations.
Some people do it on purpose, with the o
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:18 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
> The problem I see now is that people will have a hard time to actually
> switch, because unlike gnutls we cannot have openssl and libressl be
> installed at the same time.
>
I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
Anthony G. Basile:
> On 01/23/15 00:56, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Dnia 2015-01-23, o godz. 01:51:24
>> hasufell napisał(a):
>>
>>> Regarding the last libav discussion I think we should also go with a
>>> "libressl" USE flag instead of creating a virtual that makes handling
>>> SUBSLOTs impossible.
>>
On 01/23/15 00:56, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-01-23, o godz. 01:51:24
hasufell napisał(a):
Regarding the last libav discussion I think we should also go with a
"libressl" USE flag instead of creating a virtual that makes handling
SUBSLOTs impossible.
If libressl and openssl would have matc
But they don't. See my two blog posts on the matter. ABI compatibility is
explicitly not. What they care about.
On 23 Jan 2015 05:56, "Michał Górny" wrote:
> Dnia 2015-01-23, o godz. 01:51:24
> hasufell napisał(a):
>
> > Regarding the last libav discussion I think we should also go with a
> > "l
Dnia 2015-01-23, o godz. 01:51:24
hasufell napisał(a):
> Regarding the last libav discussion I think we should also go with a
> "libressl" USE flag instead of creating a virtual that makes handling
> SUBSLOTs impossible.
If libressl and openssl would have matching ABIs, that wouldn't be
necessar
Regarding the last libav discussion I think we should also go with a
"libressl" USE flag instead of creating a virtual that makes handling
SUBSLOTs impossible.
Matthew Summers:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 12:59 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> Dirkjan Ochtman:
>>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell wrote:
So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl.
>>>
>>> Some caveats have already been discovered:
>>>
>
> So, libressl is really nowhere
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 12:59 PM, hasufell wrote:
> Dirkjan Ochtman:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>> So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl.
>>
>> Some caveats have already been discovered:
>>
So, libressl is really nowhere near ready for prime time or
Dirkjan Ochtman:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl.
>
> Some caveats have already been discovered:
>
> http://devsonacid.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/how-compatible-is-libressl/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>
The Werror thi
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell wrote:
> So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl.
Some caveats have already been discovered:
http://devsonacid.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/how-compatible-is-libressl/
Cheers,
Dirkjan
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:37:53PM +, hasufell wrote:
*snip*
> KEYWORDS="~alpha ~amd64 ~arm ~arm64 ~hppa ~ia64 ~m68k ~mips ~ppc
> ~ppc64 ~s390 ~sh ~sparc ~x86 ~amd64-fbsd ~sparc-fbsd ~x86-fbsd
> ~arm-linux ~x86-linux"
If a provider of the virtual is already stable, you can commit the
virtual
Anthony G. Basile:
>
> I just did a quick count of all packages which refer to
> dev-libs/openssl. I'm getting 590 packages. This will be quite a task.
>
For ~arch we could probably do that with a script. For stable arch we
should ask maintainers to do it.
On 07/12/14 08:37, hasufell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508750
http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/LibreSSL/
SHA256 139ac81c9478accd38a9eb667623d75997a2197cec36f184cd8d23e98a7e475b
(yet none of it is signed)
So libressl is meant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508750
http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/LibreSSL/
SHA256 139ac81c9478accd38a9eb667623d75997a2197cec36f184cd8d23e98a7e475b
(yet none of it is signed)
So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl.
19 matches
Mail list logo
