Rich Freeman wrote:
I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep
filenames the same/etc such that the packages collide in their
recommended configurations.
Some people do it on purpose, with
On Jan 26, 2015 11:01 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
there wouldn't be an /etc/init.d, but rather a bazillion
/pkg/guid/etc/init.d directories or something like that
I guess an abstraction akin to pkg-config could solve the problem.
Sort of. You can't call a
Rich Freeman wrote:
I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep
filenames the same/etc such that the packages collide in their
recommended configurations.
Some people do it on purpose, with the
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep
filenames the same/etc such that the packages collide in their
On 01/26/2015 01:08 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
I personally find it annoying when people fork projects, decide not to
maintain ABI compatibility with the original project, and then keep
filenames the same/etc
Anthony G. Basile:
On 01/23/15 00:56, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-01-23, o godz. 01:51:24
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Regarding the last libav discussion I think we should also go with a
libressl USE flag instead of creating a virtual that makes handling
SUBSLOTs impossible.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:18 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
The problem I see now is that people will have a hard time to actually
switch, because unlike gnutls we cannot have openssl and libressl be
installed at the same time.
I personally find it annoying when people fork
But they don't. See my two blog posts on the matter. ABI compatibility is
explicitly not. What they care about.
On 23 Jan 2015 05:56, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2015-01-23, o godz. 01:51:24
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Regarding the last libav discussion I think
On 01/23/15 00:56, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-01-23, o godz. 01:51:24
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Regarding the last libav discussion I think we should also go with a
libressl USE flag instead of creating a virtual that makes handling
SUBSLOTs impossible.
If libressl and
Regarding the last libav discussion I think we should also go with a
libressl USE flag instead of creating a virtual that makes handling
SUBSLOTs impossible.
Dnia 2015-01-23, o godz. 01:51:24
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Regarding the last libav discussion I think we should also go with a
libressl USE flag instead of creating a virtual that makes handling
SUBSLOTs impossible.
If libressl and openssl would have matching ABIs, that
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 12:59 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dirkjan Ochtman:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl.
Some caveats have already been discovered:
So, libressl is really nowhere
Matthew Summers:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 12:59 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dirkjan Ochtman:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl.
Some caveats have already been discovered:
So, libressl
Dirkjan Ochtman:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl.
Some caveats have already been discovered:
http://devsonacid.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/how-compatible-is-libressl/
Cheers,
Dirkjan
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508750
http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/LibreSSL/
SHA256 139ac81c9478accd38a9eb667623d75997a2197cec36f184cd8d23e98a7e475b
(yet none of it is signed)
So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for
On 07/12/14 08:37, hasufell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508750
http://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/LibreSSL/
SHA256 139ac81c9478accd38a9eb667623d75997a2197cec36f184cd8d23e98a7e475b
(yet none of it is signed)
So libressl is meant
Anthony G. Basile:
I just did a quick count of all packages which refer to
dev-libs/openssl. I'm getting 590 packages. This will be quite a task.
For ~arch we could probably do that with a script. For stable arch we
should ask maintainers to do it.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:37:53PM +, hasufell wrote:
*snip*
KEYWORDS=~alpha ~amd64 ~arm ~arm64 ~hppa ~ia64 ~m68k ~mips ~ppc
~ppc64 ~s390 ~sh ~sparc ~x86 ~amd64-fbsd ~sparc-fbsd ~x86-fbsd
~arm-linux ~x86-linux
If a provider of the virtual is already stable, you can commit the
virtual
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:37 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
So libressl is meant as a drop-in replacement for openssl.
Some caveats have already been discovered:
http://devsonacid.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/how-compatible-is-libressl/
Cheers,
Dirkjan
19 matches
Mail list logo
