Draft
Conversation
The frontends are mostly interchangeable.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The frontends are mostly interchangeable between OpenSSL and LibreSSL.
I thought it would be useful for a project licensed under BSD license to support a cryptography library from its "homeland" :)
As the first line says, LibreSSL is not binary compatible with OpenSSL but provides the same interfaces for applications that use the latter so these could be recompiled with the former.
The diff to looks a bit large to me and I was thinking there should be no intentions to touch preprocessor conditions and implicitly treat LibreSSL as OpenSSL. I'm open to suggestions and for this reason I mark this pull request as draft and title it with "request for comments".