Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Ehh, I maintain a few libs that rely on the OpenSSL Windows ports. I'm not too keen on writing a compatibility layer that says "if windows, use the MS version, else use libreSSL!"

I'm fine with them not supporting MSVC in the build, but is it really that much harder to support something like MinGW/MSYS? No need for Cygwin.

The whole point of OpenSSL was that it runs everywhere. If we're going to write a shiny new version, let's at least try to hit the major platforms.



I imagine that's what the supported option is going to be. Given that the OpenSSH documentation explicitly lists Cygwin as the way to run it for windows, similar will probably happen for LibreSSL. The OpenBSD team has always had another team handle porting of their libraries, and they do a pretty good job of it.


Its not a replacement for OpenSSL, OpenSSL will continue to exists as it is, but in a while when libressl is stable enough you can choose on or the other.

Its just a fork.


you can write a layer that says "if windows, use openssl, else use libreSSL"


It's probably easier to cut the code right down to size now, then re-add compatibility once the base is solid.

Given how knarly build systems can be, then only supporting modern versions of the same could help remove a lot of cruft.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: