> Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:13:24AM +0300, Samuli Seppänen wrote: >> Currently all of the binary builds we provide[*] are linked to OpenSSL. >> Would having both OpenSSL and PolarSSL builds make sense (e.g. starting >> with 2.4)? > I think it would be a nice option. We could even start with 2.3.4 with > that, at least for windows... (if PolarSSL can be cross-compiled for > windows...) > I think the "cross-compile on Windows" part is the trickiest part. That said, on Debian/Ubuntu we'd probably need to use some package name tricks like:
"openvpn" (a metapackage) "openvpn_openssl", provides openvpn (=openvpn+openssl) "openvpn_polarssl", provides openvpn (=openvpn+polarssl) Agi: do you have any suggestions on how to best handle this kind of scenario? Also, if we don't wish maintain our own set of PolarSSL .deb packages we'd have to limit ourselves to fairly recent Debian/Ubuntu versions. -- Samuli Seppänen Community Manager OpenVPN Technologies, Inc irc freenode net: mattock
