Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:38:56 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: State of LibreSSL in FreeBSD ports Message-ID: <C5021E7B-F1C4-4C61-80F6-85436A4C5A8B@grem.de> In-Reply-To: <20211004182033.7iaeak3z2dgwdbhw@aching.in.mat.cc> References: <20211004182033.7iaeak3z2dgwdbhw@aching.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 4. Oct 2021, at 20:21, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 04:16:54PM +0200, Felix Palmen wrote: >> Is LibreSSL in FreeBSD ports >>=20 >> * supported, so ports should build with it if at all possible? >> * supported on a "best effort" base, so setting a port BROKEN is >> acceptable if maintaining (working) patches would be too much hassle? >> * NOT supported at all, so random build failures with LibreSSL are fine? >=20 > I'd say the third option, I wouldn=E2=80=99t say =E2=80=9Cnot supported at all=E2=80=9D. It=E2=80=99s n= ot hard to run very stable setups using libressl from ports. -m > the only *SSL variant that is guaranteed too > work is using the base system OpenSSL, using anything else is bound to > hurt and segfault at one point or the other. >=20 > This is because your software will have linking with one library from > the base system that brings OpenSSL, and some other library that links > with ports OpenSSL or LibreSSL, and the software calls one function that > is in both. >=20 > At that point, it is a variant of the russian roulette, but with about a > half and half chance of the function called being resolved to the wrong > library. >=20 > --=20 > Mathieu Arnold
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C5021E7B-F1C4-4C61-80F6-85436A4C5A8B>