On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:22 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > No useful comments, so I will proceed as outlined in the transition plan. >
I don't think your attitude is going to win you a lot of friends, and I don't think that we're better off for it. That said, I've yet to hear a workable alternative, and I don't have one to offer myself. I don't really like what has happened with kerberos and ffmpeg and mysql, and I'm not looking forward to what is going to happen with libressl. I fear that as with the other situations we'll end up with one solution used by 99% of systems, and another solution used by 1% of systems, and no happy compromise that lets people mix and match software that relies on either. That really doesn't strike me as the Gentoo way. However, unless people stop promoting and/or using competing solutions that share the same namespaces we're going to have these problems, and we have to live with reality and not pretend that it doesn't exist. If somebody can come up with a better solution, I'm all ears. What hasufell proposes isn't any worse than what we already have. It just fails to be any better. As was pointed out there are some fundamental issues with just trying to slot something like this unless you go patching the living daylights out of the library and everything that uses it. The thing is that I think the libressl authors are shooting themselves in the feet. When upstreams do this sort of thing they think they're making the upgrade path easier by not changing their symbol names. In reality, they're making the upgrade path harder by preventing side-by-side adoption of the new solution. -- Rich
