> "Fixing" it in a way that guarantees that the changes will not be pulled back into OpenSSL has the following problems: > * the fork will lag behind when new

> "Fixing" it in a way that guarantees that the changes will not be pulled back into OpenSSL has the following problems: > * the fork will lag behind when new features are introduced into OpenSSL > * the fork will lag behind when new fixes for OpenSSL are implemented > This creates a permanent maintenance burden for the LibreSSL maintainers; sure they have attention now, but in 3 months nobody will give a shit any more. So, it's gonna be apache all over again. Where they maintained their own fork, with no security patches applied. Or perhaps like OpenSSH, where a linux user is forced to `./configure && make && make install'. I'm trusting your opinion, after careful reviewing of all your commits. :) /irony off