From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A04138A1A for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:06:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 43F12E08EA; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:06:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com (mail-ie0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6967EE08D1 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:05:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id rp18so1100588iec.12 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 01:05:58 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=OjQBeXwfgxafcTJH4wKxD7j2+K7vOgYwNPbh5J4vsTE=; b=PiZg01sAZd3bLd1w2L9QLwmSVj4IfJqqi+EdQpoFsO+qbzCIS9nXIhZs5auhGC33Qt bBqNvnXBTJJp/EJtQ/rSax1rBkAeGKcm7KLBFVsGKSAa1wfqIa2T47BDI8Za9MHOaIM8 2ERDplSf8BURtpQvTHGbxTNdGy4KTSKBNj5HZb7jq1pdjqTKWrTpCOpT77CrCB9k+KVh 5sb4oI0H2DjV6e2wMGDIa/p3NsS03SsbjKpKV34drWi7ApeS53EKVVH3R507YHVDQUEa TXiuEu84QMYOvnBeoGC20V99xeiBQPdG3VKaJ4+/Bsq+3Rqr8ZvkvRt0Bx0AhKzJIZcR KjzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm9oxSGc4w+RgzkCBm3Oq3KmcHTyGvHEQHH2ZeaXsa2rupLK9dyeaAHO9AVE3parRhlJ/td Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.169.222 with SMTP id f91mr2499055ioj.88.1422003958534; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 01:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.73.15 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 01:05:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.73.15 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 01:05:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150123065607.74cd64d1@pomiot.lan> References: <53C12C21.6070605@gentoo.org> <54C1A91C.8010702@gentoo.org> <20150123065607.74cd64d1@pomiot.lan> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:05:58 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] LibreSSL, introduce virtual/openssl From: =?UTF-8?Q?Diego_Elio_Petten=C3=B2?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11427bd2d1704b050d4e187d X-Archives-Salt: 4088e260-df88-442d-b17d-c8ad183fcbce X-Archives-Hash: edd620a8fe62422ce0db671b07f747f5 --001a11427bd2d1704b050d4e187d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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, "Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny" wrote: > Dnia 2015-01-23, o godz. 01:51:24 > hasufell napisa=C5=82(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 wouldn't be > necessary and you could what virtual/libudev does, i.e. explicit > subslot deps. > > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > --001a11427bd2d1704b050d4e187d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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, "Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3r= ny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>= wrote:
Dnia 2015-01= -23, o godz. 01:51:24
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org= > napisa=C5=82(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 wouldn't be
necessary and you could what virtual/libudev does, i.e. explicit
subslot deps.

--
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny
--001a11427bd2d1704b050d4e187d--