❦ 13 juillet 2014 11:52 +0800, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> :
>> 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. It will never be ABI compatible since they have removed stuff. Anything should be recompiled to ensure that "obsolete" functions are not used. >> 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... He did rebuild everything: http://devsonacid.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/how-compatible-is-libressl/ -- die_if_kernel("Kernel gets FloatingPenguinUnit disabled trap", regs); 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/arch/sparc/kernel/traps.c
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
