Re: question to package maintainers

Having OpenSSL and LibreSSL living together on the same system seems reasonable. Surely name conflicts can be worked around somehow? Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many people run OpenSMTP on the offending systems compared to OpenBSD? Cheers, Tim Hume. > On 24 Dec 2015, at 03:06,

Re: question to package maintainers

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 07:25:36PM +1100, Tim Hume wrote: > Having OpenSSL and LibreSSL living together on the same system seems > reasonable. Surely name conflicts can be worked around somehow? > That's my point ;-) > Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many people run OpenSMTP on the >

Re: question to package maintainers

Just before we dive further into this thread, I'd like to clarify that the reason for this debate is really to help establish a strategy forward, not a way to push for a change next week disregarding packagers. I want to be sure I understand the limiting factors here and there, so the change CAN

Re: question to package maintainers

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 09:42:56AM +0100, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many people run OpenSMTP on > > the offending systems compared to OpenBSD? According to Debian popcon (an opt-in "popularity contest" for packages), there are >= 19 people with opensmtpd

Re: question to package maintainers

> On 24 Dec 2015, at 02:16, Gilles Chehade wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 07:56:25PM +0600, Denis Fateyev wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote: >>> >>> >>> Would your distribution be affected if LibreSSL became a

Re: question to package maintainers

On Dec 24, 2015 7:31 PM, "Gilles Chehade" 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 > >

Re: question to package maintainers

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 07:56:25PM +0600, Denis Fateyev wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > > > > Would your distribution be affected if LibreSSL became a requirement ? > > > > OpenSMTPD is starting to rely on LibreSSL-specific functions that

Re: question to package maintainers

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 07:56:02AM -0800, Richard wrote: > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > > What I'm wondering is if there's any reason that would prevent RHEL, for > > example, to package LibreSSL in the same way that libasr was packaged so > > that OpenSMTPD could specifically

Re: question to package maintainers

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > Would your distribution be affected if LibreSSL became a requirement ? > > OpenSMTPD is starting to rely on LibreSSL-specific functions that will > force us to go through painful hacks to maintain that dual SSL support

Re: question to package maintainers

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015, Gilles Chehade wrote: > What I'm wondering is if there's any reason that would prevent RHEL, for > example, to package LibreSSL in the same way that libasr was packaged so > that OpenSMTPD could specifically depend on it. > > The system would keep its default SSL library. >

Re: question to package maintainers

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Gilles Chehade wrote: > > What I'm wondering is if there's any reason that would prevent RHEL, for > example, to package LibreSSL in the same way that libasr was packaged so > that OpenSMTPD could specifically depend on it. > > The system would

question to package maintainers

Hi, Would your distribution be affected if LibreSSL became a requirement ? OpenSMTPD is starting to rely on LibreSSL-specific functions that will force us to go through painful hacks to maintain that dual SSL support and I'd like to know if switching to a LibreSSL-only mode is an option at this