From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 20 22:28:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from piranha.amis.net (piranha.amis.net [212.18.32.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F202937BA8C for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:28:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blaz@amis.net) Received: from gold.amis.net (gold.amis.net [212.18.32.254]) by piranha.amis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B336D5D41; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:28:48 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:28:47 +0100 (CET) From: Blaz Zupan To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: openssl in -current In-Reply-To: <19347.951098777@zippy.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > In FreeBSD's case, however, the conservative approach has landed us in > "no man's land", where openssl can neither be wholly justified or > dismissed, and I think that's a fundamental issue which needs to be > addressed. I've seen Kris's arguments about how integrating openssl > is a useful first step, but that's not actually as strong an arguing > position as it sounds. Just stepping back a bit, in fact, one can I wholly agree. I would just like to remind everybody of the TCL fiasco. If I remember correctly, TCL was also imported on the grounds of "we will need this later" and it caused a whole lot of problems because the software that was supposed to use it never appeared in the tree. I'd say, back it out until we really need it in there. Blaz Zupan, blaz@amis.net, http://home.amis.net/blaz/ Medinet d.o.o., Linhartova 21, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message