Re: [PATCH] libressl -> update to 2.3.3

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:19:40PM +0100, Nils Gillmann wrote: > LibreSSL is now at version 2.3.3, release notes: > http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/LibreSSL/libressl-2.3.3-relnotes.txt Thank you! Applied as 7b150a24fe > > From b4ba4746551d17abc2ea6516bc58291dbe86d233 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

[PATCH] libressl -> update to 2.3.3

LibreSSL is now at version 2.3.3, release notes: http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/LibreSSL/libressl-2.3.3-relnotes.txt >From b4ba4746551d17abc2ea6516bc58291dbe86d233 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nils Gillmann Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:15:31 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] gnu: libressl: Update to 2.3.

Re: [PATCH] Libressl

On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 09:57:15PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote: > The attached patch does the first half of the change. Is it okay to push it? I did, as there was no complaint; the next part (move openssl.scm into tls.scm) will follow soon. Andreas

Re: [PATCH] Libressl

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:16:06PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > The license you pasted is the original SSLeay License, whereas > says: > The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one of them > being the license of SSLeay.

Re: [PATCH] Libressl

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 04:15:40PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Andreas Enge writes: > > I also wonder whether we should not unite gnutls.scm and openssl.scm into > > one tls.scm. > Sounds good to me. The attached patch does the first half of the change. Is it okay to push it? Andreas >From 08

Re: [PATCH] Libressl

Mark H Weaver skribis: > Andreas Enge writes: [...] >> the next question would be whether we should switch >> all inputs from openssl to libressl. I tried it for fetchmail, and it works >> just the same. > > I would be in favor of trying this in core-updates. I think this should rather be tri

Re: [PATCH] Libressl

Andreas Enge writes: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 04:15:40PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> The COPYING file says that the OpenSSL code is under the OpenSSL license >> and the new contributions are under ISC or public domain, so how about >> this instead? >> (license (list license:openssl >>

Re: [PATCH] Libressl

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 04:15:40PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > The COPYING file says that the OpenSSL code is under the OpenSSL license > and the new contributions are under ISC or public domain, so how about > this instead? > (license (list license:openssl >license:isc)))

Re: [PATCH] Libressl

Andreas Enge writes: > the attached patch adds libressl. As you can see, it is quite a bit simpler > than the openssl package, which already inspires confidence. I think we > should add the package; Agreed. > the next question would be whether we should switch > all inputs from openssl to libre

[PATCH] Libressl

Hello, the attached patch adds libressl. As you can see, it is quite a bit simpler than the openssl package, which already inspires confidence. I think we should add the package; the next question would be whether we should switch all inputs from openssl to libressl. I tried it for fetchmail, and