Hi,I recently noticed that security/boringssl is treated in a similar way of OpenSSL and LibreSSL. Although boringssl is derived from OpenSSL, it's usually meant to be statically linked into the resulting binary, because there is no guarantee of ABI stability across different releases and the caller is expected to evolve fast enough to follow the latest version of it.
OpenBSD seems to be going though the statically linked route and they install boringssl into ${PREFIX}/eboringssl instead of the regular ${PREFIX}. This way, it's no longer conflicting with other OpenSSL/LibreSSL installation (technically, it still is, but only if the binary links against both OpenSSL/LibreSSL _and_ boringssl).
Should we follow this? And is using something like ${PREFIX}/eboringssl a good model? (I think ultimately we need something like it).
Cheers,
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
