6 ms·

The github repo: https://github.com/libressl-portable https://github.com/libressl-portable

by nayden 12y ago

Kikawala 12y ago
From the README: Development is done in the upstream OpenBSD codebase. A github clone of the official repositories is kept at: https://github.com/libressl-portable https://github.com/libressl-portable We update this repository from the OpenBSD respositories semi-frequently, so changes may not show up in GitHub immediately. The GitHub repository should be used for informational purposes only.
- raverbashing 12y ago
  Makes me wonder why is OpenBSD still using CVS for their things. Really, not having atomic commits is a pain
  - steveklabnik 12y ago
    My understanding is that it's BSD licensed, and works well enough.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      No, it's GNU CVS, but it does work well enoughish...
      - stal 12y ago
        they use a shitty BSD clone called Open CVS
        tedunangst 12y ago
        Or not.
        stal 12y ago
        yes they do
        owenmarshall 12y ago
        You do realize who Ted Unangst is, right? If he says "we use GNU CVS" you might consider believing him.
        jrockway 12y ago
        You might consider cross-referencing the authors of commits to the LibreSSL project with the authors of comments in this thread. You might be surprised.
      - Natsu 12y ago
        Just curious, but why don't you use git?
  - forgottenpass 12y ago
    Works for them so who cares? No reason to bikeshed tools of a project you're not sending patches to anyway.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Windows XP works for some people. There are legitimate costs to operating in the past, moreso when it's a project other people rely on. -2 for an absolutely true fact? Wow. I'm not normally one to complain about downvotes but.. seriously.
      - LukeShu 12y ago
        There are also significant migration costs. They likely have a toolchain built around CVS that would have a very challenging time being migrated to git. They also have a workflow that involves tracking file IDs as the import/export files from other projects. Git doesn't do this well.
        Karunamon 12y ago
        Every change (for significant values of, err.. significant) breaks someone's workflow. Again, XP works for many. That doesn't mean there aren't vanishingly few reasons to use it anymore. For CVS, there's the whole non-atomic changes thing, the whole no renaming files thing, no binary file support, no amending commits, no bisect (a feature which I believe sells the software even if everything else sucked), it's harder to collaborate with other users.. Holding onto objectively inferior tools due to a lack of desire to migrate because "it works for me!" is a huge plague on technology.
        panzi 12y ago
        I think there is a much more important feature in git for OpenBSD: cryptographic hashes of all commits that depend on the parent commit (=> cryptographically hashed history). Combine that with commit signing and detecting tampering gets easy. There are reported cases where this helped the Linux kernel project detect tampering. Or have they implemented something like this on top of CVS?
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    I'm all for migrating to git, but at least one aspect of the OpenBSD workflow would take some serious thought to migrate: CVS supports having one giant repository containing everything (at least, as well as it supports anything else), even including project source code, whereas git really wants smaller per-project repositories that share common history with the corresponding upstreams. In light of that, migrating to git would require some non-trivial workflow changes, making it understandable that it hasn't happened in a hurry.
  - pling 12y ago
    It depends how you work and how stable your product is. I think they are patch heavy i.e the CVS tree is used to apply patches to and that is that. CVS has some advantages then as you can pin individual file versions on a tag rather than having to fuck around merging things. Individual files might be ethernet drivers, scheduler etc because TBH the BSD codebase is a hell of a lot better decoupled and modular than most things out there. CVS works because they didn't fuck it up.
  - hobarrera 12y ago
    License is one of the reasons. OpenBSD uses the BSD license, and has a strong preference for it when it comes to the base system, base tools, etc. There's no chance they'll move something so critical to GPL-licensed software.
    - clarry 12y ago
      $ uname OpenBSD $ cvs -v Concurrent Versions System (CVS) 1.11.1p1 (client/server) Copyright (c) 1989-2001 Brian Berliner, david d `zoo' zuhn, Jeff Polk, and other authors CVS may be copied only under the terms of the GNU General Public License, a copy of which can be found with the CVS distribution kit. Specify the --help option for further information about CVS Unfortunately CVS isn't the only GPL-licensed piece of software in OpenBSD. But slowly, one by one, these things seem to get replaced with free and better alternatives. I can imagine a future in which we're free of GPL tentacles.

The github repo: https://github.com/libressl-portable https://github.com/libressl-portable

by nayden 12y ago

The github repo: https://github.com/libressl-portable https://github.com/libressl-portable

From the README: Development is done in the upstream OpenBSD codebase. A github clone of the official repositories is kept at: https://github.com/libressl-portable https://github.com/libressl-portable We update this repository from the OpenBSD respositories semi-frequently, so changes may not show up in GitHub immediately. The GitHub repository should be used for informational purposes only.

raverbashing 12y ago
Makes me wonder why is OpenBSD still using CVS for their things. Really, not having atomic commits is a pain
- steveklabnik 12y ago
  My understanding is that it's BSD licensed, and works well enough.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    No, it's GNU CVS, but it does work well enoughish...
    - stal 12y ago
      they use a shitty BSD clone called Open CVS
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        Or not.
        stal 12y ago
        yes they do
        owenmarshall 12y ago
        You do realize who Ted Unangst is, right? If he says "we use GNU CVS" you might consider believing him.
        jrockway 12y ago
        You might consider cross-referencing the authors of commits to the LibreSSL project with the authors of comments in this thread. You might be surprised.
    - Natsu 12y ago
      Just curious, but why don't you use git?
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  Works for them so who cares? No reason to bikeshed tools of a project you're not sending patches to anyway.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Windows XP works for some people. There are legitimate costs to operating in the past, moreso when it's a project other people rely on. -2 for an absolutely true fact? Wow. I'm not normally one to complain about downvotes but.. seriously.
    - LukeShu 12y ago
      There are also significant migration costs. They likely have a toolchain built around CVS that would have a very challenging time being migrated to git. They also have a workflow that involves tracking file IDs as the import/export files from other projects. Git doesn't do this well.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        Every change (for significant values of, err.. significant) breaks someone's workflow. Again, XP works for many. That doesn't mean there aren't vanishingly few reasons to use it anymore. For CVS, there's the whole non-atomic changes thing, the whole no renaming files thing, no binary file support, no amending commits, no bisect (a feature which I believe sells the software even if everything else sucked), it's harder to collaborate with other users.. Holding onto objectively inferior tools due to a lack of desire to migrate because "it works for me!" is a huge plague on technology.
        panzi 12y ago
        I think there is a much more important feature in git for OpenBSD: cryptographic hashes of all commits that depend on the parent commit (=> cryptographically hashed history). Combine that with commit signing and detecting tampering gets easy. There are reported cases where this helped the Linux kernel project detect tampering. Or have they implemented something like this on top of CVS?
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  I'm all for migrating to git, but at least one aspect of the OpenBSD workflow would take some serious thought to migrate: CVS supports having one giant repository containing everything (at least, as well as it supports anything else), even including project source code, whereas git really wants smaller per-project repositories that share common history with the corresponding upstreams. In light of that, migrating to git would require some non-trivial workflow changes, making it understandable that it hasn't happened in a hurry.
- pling 12y ago
  It depends how you work and how stable your product is. I think they are patch heavy i.e the CVS tree is used to apply patches to and that is that. CVS has some advantages then as you can pin individual file versions on a tag rather than having to fuck around merging things. Individual files might be ethernet drivers, scheduler etc because TBH the BSD codebase is a hell of a lot better decoupled and modular than most things out there. CVS works because they didn't fuck it up.
- hobarrera 12y ago
  License is one of the reasons. OpenBSD uses the BSD license, and has a strong preference for it when it comes to the base system, base tools, etc. There's no chance they'll move something so critical to GPL-licensed software.
  - clarry 12y ago
    $ uname OpenBSD $ cvs -v Concurrent Versions System (CVS) 1.11.1p1 (client/server) Copyright (c) 1989-2001 Brian Berliner, david d `zoo' zuhn, Jeff Polk, and other authors CVS may be copied only under the terms of the GNU General Public License, a copy of which can be found with the CVS distribution kit. Specify the --help option for further information about CVS Unfortunately CVS isn't the only GPL-licensed piece of software in OpenBSD. But slowly, one by one, these things seem to get replaced with free and better alternatives. I can imagine a future in which we're free of GPL tentacles.