>How is that vast amount of software going to work under LSB, then? LSB does not support all applications anyways (for example, anything that has a direct kernel dependency is not a LSB application), and we are not trying to do so here either. Instead I'm attempting to be able to support something close to 70% of existing applications (i.e. they will 'just work' or only require minor tweaks to be LSB compliant), whereas it might be a bit rude to entirely break the last 30% in the more general openssl distribution case.
>In any case, ABI stability is not a problem unique to LSB, and I'm not >sure why we'd want to solve it for only that project. I'm personally totally okay with that, but I'm also really motived from an LSB perspective and presume minimally invasive change would be the most acceptable in the upstread OpenSSL distributions. The difference really is that with this patch you are more able to create ABI stable applications by following good practice, but the choice is really yours, but when using LSB you have to because LSB would force that upon you. Tracy Camp > >Cheers, > >Ben. > >-- >http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/ > >"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he >doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff >______________________________________________________________________ >OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org >Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org >Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
