On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 07:48:44PM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On 11.07.2016 19:29, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:04:33AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016, at 05:29, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > >>> > >>> I.e. GOST will be available in openssl. > >>> Under BSD-like license. > >>> Can be this engine import in base system and enabled at time 1.1.0? > >>> And can be GOST enabled now? > >>> > >> > >> I think the wrong question is being asked here. Instead we need to focus > >> on decoupling openssl from base so this can all be handled by ports. > > > > This is wrong direction with current policy. > > ports: unsupported by FreeBSD core and securite team, no guaranted to comaptible > > between options and applications. > > > > base: supported by FreeBSD core and securite team, covered by CI, > > checked for forward and backward API and ABI compatibility. > > > > Ports are supported by secteam, and recently I notice "headsup" mail > with intention to make base openssl private and switch all ports to > security/openssl port. I mean `support` is commit reviewing, auditing and etc. Secteam do it for ports? > Adding of GOST as 3rd party plugin is technically possible in both > (base, ports) cases, the rest of decision is up to FreeBSD openssl > maintainers and possible contributors efforts. > > I need to specially point to "patches" section of the 3rd party GOST > plugin, from just viewing I don't understand, are those additional > openssl patches should be applied to openssl for GOST, or they are just > reflect existent changes in the openssl. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-security_at_freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"Received on Mon Jul 11 2016 - 18:13:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:06 UTC