Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > 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).
This is quite errorprone, given the millions of possible config possibilities for the library. neither here nor there i suppose, just thought i'd mention it. you'd need a uint1024_t to accurately capture the API as a number.
