Ehh, it doesn't seem very hasty to me. The proposal is for Alpine 3.17 or 3.18, which are 1 and 1.5 years away respectively. That's plenty of time to consider t

Ehh, it doesn't seem very hasty to me. The proposal is for Alpine 3.17 or 3.18, which are 1 and 1.5 years away respectively. That's plenty of time to consider the pros and cons, try it, and revert if it ends up being a poor choice. > Seems like this stems from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/16660 https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/16660 which contains the full backstory and some more information. I wouldn't call that the "full backstory", since it is only about a single issue outlined in this proposal. Though she does explain that fact in that GitHub thread too, and also why they're looking into alternatives: > Given that the OpenSSL 3 migration had an outcome where our contingency plan came into effect, I believe it to be the most prudent course of action to evaluate all possible options before committing to trying the OpenSSL 3 migration again, such an evaluation would be required by the TSC anyway. > and instead the author chose to write on Twitter and in AlpineLinux GitLab about the frustrations. Eh, I wouldn't read too much into short twitter vents. As for the Alpine Linux GitLab, well, she's the head of Alpine's security team and a member of the TSC, so coming up with proposals as for what should be investigated w.r.t. security critical packages is one of the things she's supposed to be doing.