On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 12:34:49PM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote: > On 08.09.21 11:07, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 01:58:00PM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > > > ??, 8 ????. 2021 ?. ? 13:54, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 12:05:23PM +0500, ???? ??????? wrote: > > > > > Hello, Bob > > > > > > > > > > I tracked an issue https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/issues/1386 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let's track activity there > > > > > > > > Quite frankly, I'm seriously wondering how long we'll want to keep > > > > supporting that constantly breaking library. Does it still provide > > > > > > > > > > by "let us track activity" I do not mean that we are going to maintain > > > BoringSSL :) > > > > > > people will come from time to time with BoringSSL support request. > > > Existing > > > github issue is good to redirect them to. > > > > Oh this is how I understood it as well, I just think that you and a > > handful of others have already spent a lot of energy on that lib and > > I was only encouraging you not to spend way more than what you find > > reasonable after this issue is created :-) > > Is there another library which have the quic stuff implemented which > can be used for quic development?
Fred told me that he manages to build it using the fork of openssl that contains the proper stuff. Hopefully it should get merged soon. But with BoringSSL the problem is that something that works on monday suddenly fails to build on tuesday and there's no stable branch so you're just forced to change your API to adapt to it on the fly. I don't want to blame them too much because they always warned against this. It's been convenient to start on QUIC but as soon as we can avoid this pain it will be better to get rid of it. Willy
