On 12/29/20 6:06 PM, David Seifert wrote: > > If you want to provide an alternative, you have to subsume the API, not > make it superficially compatible, only to find out that the you need to > mask out a ton of stuff with macros.
Agreed. If libressl hadn't failed on this point, we would not be having this conversation. They promised it would be API compatible and it started that way, but not anymore. This became annoying even to me with my other packages like stunnel, where with every bump I had to create a new patch with macros based on versions. This is not something we want to saddle the rest of Gentoo with. Nor do we want to burden upstream teams to have to follow libressl's insanity. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
