On Jan 11 07:07:42, ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2018, at 14:49, Jan Stary wrote:
>
> > On Jan 09 09:40:23, Blair Zajac wrote:
> >> https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/
> >>
> >> "Although BoringSSL is an open source project, it is not intended for
> >> general use,
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Jan 09 12:24:22, pe...@piermont.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:47:14 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
>> > Hi Jeremy,
>> >
>> > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 06:03:17AM -0800, Jeremy Huddleston
>> > > Sequoia wrote:
>> >
On Jan 10, 2018, at 06:33, Jan Stary wrote:
> what is the strategy with the libressl port as opposed to libressl-devel?
> Currently, libressl is 2.5.5 and libressl-devel is 2.6.2.
>
> I don't think upstream even considers "devel" releases in any sense,
> a release is a release. Is there
On Jan 10, 2018, at 14:49, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Jan 09 09:40:23, Blair Zajac wrote:
>> https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/
>>
>> "Although BoringSSL is an open source project, it is not intended for
>> general use, as OpenSSL is. We don't recommend that third parties depend
>> upon
On Jan 10 11:02:46, neum...@wu.ac.at wrote:
> Am 09.01.18 um 18:24 schrieb Perry E. Metzger:
> > On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:47:14 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
> > > Hi Jeremy,
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 06:03:17AM -0800, Jeremy Huddleston
> > > > Sequoia wrote:
> > > > > There are
On Jan 09 09:40:23, bl...@orcaware.com wrote:
> https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/
>
> "Although BoringSSL is an open source project, it is not intended for general
> use, as OpenSSL is. We don't recommend that third parties depend upon it.
> Doing so is likely to be frustrating
On Jan 09 12:24:22, pe...@piermont.com wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:47:14 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 06:03:17AM -0800, Jeremy Huddleston
> > > Sequoia wrote:
> > > > There are some things that I want to do to the port (and
> > > >
Hi Jeremy,
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 06:03:17AM -0800, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> > > There are some things that I want to do to the port (and OpenSSL)
what is the strategy with the libressl port as opposed to libressl-devel?
Currently, libressl is 2.5.5 and libressl-devel is 2.6.2.
I
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:47:14 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
>> Hi Jeremy,
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 06:03:17AM -0800, Jeremy Huddleston
>>> Sequoia wrote:
There are some things that I want to do
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:47:14 +0100 Jan Stary wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 06:03:17AM -0800, Jeremy Huddleston
> > Sequoia wrote:
> > > There are some things that I want to do to the port (and
> > > OpenSSL)
>
> It would be very nice if all ports currently
Hi Jeremy,
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 06:03:17AM -0800, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> > There are some things that I want to do to the port (and OpenSSL)
It would be very nice if all ports currently depending on openssl
would build against libressl, and we could get rid of openssl
in favor
11 matches
Mail list logo