Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:49:18 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: openssl from ports Message-ID: <4F52134E.1090408@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120303071958.0c963330@scorpio> References: <86fwdqvf2x.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <20120302171631.775dd715@scorpio> <867gz2vdtg.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <20120302182156.58c10d82@scorpio> <4F515B24.9050406@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20120303071958.0c963330@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigE5EFC7090A9BC86B275D5B53
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 03/03/2012 12:19, Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 23:43:32 +0000
> Matthew Seaman articulated:
>=20
>> Stable/9, but this hasn't changed in 9.0-RELEASE:
>>
>> worm:~:# /usr/bin/openssl version
>> OpenSSL 0.9.8q 2 Dec 2010
>=20
> Matthew, why does FreeBSD continue to use an older version of OPENSSL
> for the base system when a newer version is available? While I could
> understand, even if not fully approve the use of an older version in
> the same major version, its continues use as the de facto standard in a=
n
> entirely new major version release is counter productive. There have
> been many improvements in the 1.x release of OPENSSL so I fail to see
> the logical use of the older version. If anything, they (the FreeBSD
> developers) could keep this older version available in the ports system=
> and use the newer version as the default in the base system.
Unfortunately I can't answer that. I'm not in any position to decide
such things.
However I can hazard a guess at some of the possible reasons:
* openssl API changes between 0.9.x and 1.0.0 mean updating the
shlibs is not a trivial operation, and it was judged that the
benefits obtained from updating did not justify the effort.
* no one had any time to import the new version. There's plenty of
security-critical stuff depending on openssl, and making sure all
of that didn't suffer from any regressions is not a trivial job.
* simply that no one thought of doing the upgrade.
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enigE5EFC7090A9BC86B275D5B53
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk9SE1UACgkQ8Mjk52CukIz1vgCfdMI91y2s+VSbFx9xGXeVdSfs
esUAn3Me3mnSKN3/HGgFyPPfKd3hlYut
=3SRL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigE5EFC7090A9BC86B275D5B53--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F52134E.1090408>