On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 7:14 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 09/20/2015 08:07 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:04:14 +0200 hasufell wrote: >>> Friends, >>> >>> I think it is time to import LibreSSL[0]. There are not many packages >>> left that don't compile OOTB and those can be patched (e.g. dev-lang/ruby). >>> >>> My idea would be: >>> >>> 1. import "dev-libs/libressl" (this will block dev-libs/openssl) and >>> introduce the global USE flag "libressl" with the following description: >> >> Please try to avoid such block, e.g. install libressl to a separate >> location. > > No. I'm not going to hack downstream. >
I don't think that it is the responsibility of the libressl maintainer to actually get other packages to use libressl - though they should document how it is done to facilitate this. However, if your point is that you want to be able to use libressl yourself as a drop-in replacement and this doesn't work if none of the other packages you use actually build against it when you move it, that is a fair point. I do think this is a good topic for discussion, however. It seems like forks that keep the original namespace is all the rage these days (kerberos, ffmpeg, openssl, mysql, etc). You've been a proponent of something like nixos for a while, and I'd think that this is exactly the sort of approach they take. They don't even keep the same namespace for a minor update of the same library. Of course, they have designed their build systems with this in mind, and perhaps this is a direction we need to evolve in as this sort of thing is coming up more and more. -- Rich
