On 07/12/2014 08:46 PM, Toni Mueller wrote: > As libressl is currently under > heavy development, it is imho not to be expected to have that stable ABI > you are asking for.
Well, I don't agree with this view. If LibreSSL pretends to be a replacement for OpenSSL, then they should care about being ABI compatible, so we can easily switch from one implementation to the other. Just like for MariaDB / MySQL in fact (not sure if these are still ABI compatible though). If that's not the case, then it looses a lot of its purpose. As Kurt wrote, GNUTLS becomes a better alternative then. > OTOH, one guy already switched his entire Linux > system over, so far with no visible adverse effects. And then? This gives no clue if he had to rebuild everything that build-depended on OpenSSL... On 07/13/2014 01:15 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > If you start using both for different packages, then you end up with > shared libraries conflicting over which libssl they want to use, and > then bad things start happening. Exactly! I fully agree with you on this. This reminds me issues I had with mod-log-sql linked to MySQL and php as well, and when they were built against different versions... BOOM! I certainly do *not* want this kind of things to happen in Debian. Therefore, I'd very much prefer if we used OpenSSL *or* LibreSSL, but not have the choice between the 2, otherwise, that's a recipe for disaster. Please don't upload LibreSSL to Sid *ever*, unless we collectively decide that we are switching away from OpenSSL (and for which a discussion would have to start). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
