From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:17:29 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/5] libssl: new virtual package. In-Reply-To: References: <20170615142928.31927-1-aduskett@codeblue.com> <20170615142928.31927-2-aduskett@codeblue.com> <20170615232816.121a18b9@windsurf.lan> Message-ID: <20170622141729.74baae24@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 07:32:45 -0400, Adam Duskett wrote: > So after thinking about this for a bit, I would like to also bring up > the topic of BoringSSL. > BoringSSL is gaining some traction, and I would like to also import it > into Buildroot pretty soon. > That would leave Buildroot with three possible SSL libraries. Unlike > LibreSSL, BoringSSL does not > try to maintain backwards compatibility with OpenSSL. However many > programs such as Janus-Gateway > now offer support for BoringSSL. If there's no compatibility between BoringSSL and OpenSSL/LibreSSL, then I guess BoringSSL shouldn't be a provider of the "ssl/libssl" virtual package. Instead, each package that can use should be able to use it as an alternative to the ssl/libressl virtual package. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com