Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 01:33:31 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OpenSSL vs. -lmd Message-ID: <3D4A43DB.5DE70508@mindspring.com> References: <200207311641.g6VGfRWj099655@freefall.freebsd.org> <200208012006.25130@aldan> <3D49E41D.57DBF81C@mindspring.com> <200208012319.26676@aldan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mikhail Teterin wrote: > So, you can either upgrade the port, or install OpenSSL-0.9.7 on your > own, following the generic procedure. Nothing will break... I can install it on my own, and the configure scripts for things that search for an installed version of the software will sometimes break when they find the system version instead of the installed version. > = Because it was the example in the subject line of a message that > = wanted to get rid of libmd, making my software dependent on the > = libcrypt version number when it wasn't before. > > But you are happy to depend on libmd's version number? Yes. It is, effectively, a named interface. By which I mean that the library does very little, and combines only related functionality that will commonly be versioned at or around the same time. On the extreme opposite end of things, we have libc, which combines things as disparate as the mount(2) system call and the strftime(3) function. > = If I picked a different example, it would just be someone else > = unhappy, plus people could complain that it was off topic for > = the subject line. 8-). > > In other words, in your view, the system should contain no third-party usable > libraries at all?.. Perhaps. But ours does contain plenty, and OpenSSL is > hardly the first candidate to be removed. It should contain no third party code which is actively maintained outside the control of the FreeBSD project, proper, unless that code is managed as an external package. OpenSSL is one example. Perl is another example. Note that perl was recently removed from the base system using exactly this reasoning. It was possible to remove it because it is able to be seperate its functionality from the base system, and place it in a package. OpenSSL is harder to seperate, but that's really the fault of the base system not being composed of package, not because it's "magically non-severable". You still haven't spoken to the seperation of a "libmd" from "libcrypt" using the OpenSSL rather than the FreeBSD libmd sources: the point being that the import of the hash functions from OpenSSL being tied into the libraries is an artifact of monolithic packaging, not one of necessity. There's no reason the hash functions should be in libcrypt, except that "that's where OpenSSL happens to put them". -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D4A43DB.5DE70508>