From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr  9 20:57:18 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07222FDA
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 20:57:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D3A1E48
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 20:57:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nine.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102])
 by smtp-int.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FE46B53;
 Wed,  9 Apr 2014 20:57:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by nine.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001)
 id F187E52D; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 22:57:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
To: Nathan Dorfman <na@rtfm.net>
Subject: Re: Proposal
References: <9eeba1ab-2ab0-4188-82aa-686c5573a5db@me.com>
 <8D81F198-36A7-47F4-B486-DA059910A6B4@spam.lifeforms.nl>
 <867g6y1kfe.fsf@nine.des.no>
 <CADgEyUstkxO1i_B9Qsw=K9qT=nrh9evhv8VekMdNKauOQFN6dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <86d2gqz2he.fsf@nine.des.no>
 <CADgEyUuz1YU7qPkKmydOaGT++3tK4LZZU3-1AsK5jssSkQiLYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 22:57:16 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CADgEyUuz1YU7qPkKmydOaGT++3tK4LZZU3-1AsK5jssSkQiLYw@mail.gmail.com>
 (Nathan Dorfman's message of "Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:39:01 -0400")
Message-ID: <86txa2xlub.fsf@nine.des.no>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@icloud.com>,
 Walter Hop <freebsd@spam.lifeforms.nl>,
 Pawel Biernacki <pawel.biernacki@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
 <freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:57:18 -0000

Nathan Dorfman <na@rtfm.net> writes:
> Moving on, is it not worth talking about going in and defining every
> -DOPENSSL_NO_* flag that exists and doesn't break the base system? On
> the simple grounds that there appears to be little to be gained from
> this kind of feeping creaturism, and plenty, as it turns out, to be
> lost.

This is similar in principle to what Peter did with svnlite.  Worth
considering.

DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no