On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 9:50 PM Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > I think the three main ways forward from here would be to either: > > > > > > > > 1. Keep LibreSSL for indefinite time (possibly masked) > > > > 2. Eventually move LibreSSL to libressl overlay. > > > > 3. Eventually remove LibreSSL. > > > > > > 4. A libressl or libressl-libtls ebuild installs only libtls. > > > > dev-libs/libretls already does that. > > dev-libs/libretls doesn't install a libressl libtls. > > This thread is obviously about how the libressl implementation remains > in use. > > It's clear now that you want to hinder that in Gentoo at any cost to > the community, but that's not useful, so please take a step back unless > you are actually going to be constructive. > > My proposition 4. (which I suggested already earlier - you shouldn't > have ignored it) is obviously not about having any libtls provider in > the tree, but to model reality accurately and ensure that libretls is > the primary and prefered libtls provider, since it is literally the > libtls upstream. > > It is important to me that you can choose dev-libs/libretls instead of > having any libretls code on your systems, but I reject you forcing that > choice of yours on everyone else.
I'm having trouble making sense of this sentence. Did you mean to write "libressl" instead of "libretls" somewhere? Anyway, it seems like the people maintaining libressl in Gentoo are really not interested in keeping it going. A libtls wrapper around openssl seems much more manageable to me, and that should probably be the default option for people.
