On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Paul B. Henson <hen...@acm.org> wrote: > > They're pretty much decided on allowing both openssl and libressl to be > installed concurrently and for a given application to use one or the > other. The specific method for that packaging system is what they call a > prefix; basically instead of /usr/pkg/lib/libssl it would be > /usr/pkg/libressl/lib/libssl, and packages that needed it would get the > right magic flags for the headers and libraries to be found. >
WTF. If you're going to fork a library, and don't intend to keep the packages API-compatible, then change the filenames. What is so hard about this? LIbressl was even an outside fork, so it didn't come with any of the baggage of "we're the real libssl team" or whatever. Sure, we can do the USE=libressl route like we did with libav, but since this is still new would it make more sense to just rename the libressl files so that they can still go in /usr/lib but without being called libssl? Then any package that wants to use them will need to have their build logic changed accordingly. They aren't drop-in replacements for each other anyway, as much as people would wish they were, so we should resist the urge to pretend that they are. -- Rich
