> On 02 Jun 2015, at 16:50, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>
> Even if the base system OpenSSL was modularized using pkg it would be
> still subject to ABI stability requirements. In other words it would
> be stuck at the version or versions that are 100% ABI compatible with
> one installed initially on
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the general lack of responses is probably why we have the
> OpenSSL base issues and maybe they won’t go away anytime
> soon, even though there are no downsides to modularisation.
>
> Yes, anyone can submit patches, but how can potent
Hi,
the general lack of responses is probably why we have the
OpenSSL base issues and maybe they won’t go away anytime
soon, even though there are no downsides to modularisation.
Yes, anyone can submit patches, but how can potential
contributors from the security domain bring in patches
that elud
On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> As a side note, does pkgng really have to depend on base
> OpenSSL; does it have to depend on a full-blown SSL library?
Yes.
-Ben
(From IRC:)
efnet / #bsddev / bjk 13:17 ()
In particular, Franco asked "does pkg really need to depend on o
> On 01 Jun 2015, at 18:42, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> (was Re: avoiding base openssl when building ports)
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>
>> This leads to another question. Where is the line going to be drawn
>> which libraries in the base system should be private? There are
>>
(was Re: avoiding base openssl when building ports)
On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> This leads to another question. Where is the line going to be drawn
> which libraries in the base system should be private? There are
> certainly some of them that have to be public like libc and the
>
