On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 08:29:09PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:15:43 -0600 > > From: Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> > > > > I'm wondering out loud if these versions should follow the openbsd shlib > > major minor numbers. That is where we are careful about semantic > > versioning for api change/add/remove > > No. Shared library versions are tracking the ABI. What's wanted here > is something that tracks API, including bug fixes and such. > > People really expect something like a package version here such that > they can add a check into their autoconf script that the installed > version of a package is new enough to provide the functionality their > software needs. Doing something clever here is not going to help > people. If a configure script fails telling me to get libcrypto > version 34.2, how do I determine what version of LibreSSL I need to > install? > > One possible reason to deviate from using the LibreSSL release version > would be if we want to continue to be a drop-in replacement for > OpenSSL. In that case continuing to adevrtise a reasonable OpenSSL > version number for openssl.pc, libcrypto.pc and libssl.pc might make > sense. Probably best to involve ports people in that decision though.
Back in June I had the following log entries from stunnel: Jun 16 16:56:10 fuseki stunnel: LOG5[ui]: Compiled with LibreSSL 2.1 Jun 16 16:56:10 fuseki stunnel: LOG5[ui]: Running with LibreSSL 2.2 I did build stunnel on one host and installed it on my main machine (see above), were I use it from time to time. Both hosts had the same version of libssl/libcrypto installed, but the LibreSSL version was newer on the main host. I usually update snapshots more often there, on the build mostly if library versions got bumped. Regards, Markus
