> On Wednesday 2015-08-12 20:29, Mark Kettenis wrote: > >One possible reason to deviate from using the LibreSSL release version > >would be if we want to continue to be a drop-in replacement for > >OpenSSL. In that case continuing to adevrtise a reasonable OpenSSL > >version number for openssl.pc, libcrypto.pc and libssl.pc might make > >sense. Probably best to involve ports people in that decision though. > > The openssl API did not change very often. Many build recipes > request "pkgconfig(libcrypto) >= 0.9.7" or >= 1.0.0 > for example, which the libressl files satisfy thanks to their 2.x > numbering (well, 35:0:0 also satisfies it, numerically).
I agree. Any API change would either be a removal (result: major crank of ABI), or an API addition/change (result: minor crank of ABI). On occasion we make API changes which don't meet those bars, but they are rare. And since we have these libraries "linked together", we try to be more cautious, and agressive cranking is already the norm.... It might work out.
