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 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
> 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 6/1/2015 11:25 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015, Don Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> The big culprit turned out to be ftp/curl. Even though
>>> WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes caused it to add the openssl port as a build and
>>> run dependency,
I see a need for the following scenario *before* switching around libraries:
[ based on failure of 'pkg' to continue working across a major release
without tweaks ]
pkg pre-major-upgrade
* convert local.sqlite to /var/db/pkg legacy format
* build a temporary copy of legacy pkg_install
perform u
