❦ 13 juillet 2014 11:52 +0800, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> :
>> As libressl is currently under heavy development, it is imho not to
>> be expected to have that stable ABI you are asking for.
>
> Well, I don't agree with this view. If LibreSSL pretends to be a
> replacement for OpenSSL, then they should care about being ABI
> compatible, so we can easily switch from one implementation to the
> other. Just like for MariaDB / MySQL in fact (not sure if these are
> still ABI compatible though). If that's not the case, then it looses a
> lot of its purpose. As Kurt wrote, GNUTLS becomes a better alternative
> then.
It will never be ABI compatible since they have removed stuff. Anything
should be recompiled to ensure that "obsolete" functions are not used.
>> OTOH, one guy already switched his entire Linux
>> system over, so far with no visible adverse effects.
>
> And then? This gives no clue if he had to rebuild everything that
> build-depended on OpenSSL...
He did rebuild everything:
http://devsonacid.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/how-compatible-is-libressl/
--
die_if_kernel("Kernel gets FloatingPenguinUnit disabled trap", regs);
2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/arch/sparc/kernel/traps.c
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature