3 ms·
OpenSSL development far exceeds LibreSSL, I believe they should fix OpenSSL instead of trying to fork it. OpenSSL: http://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git
by mp3geek 12y ago
OpenSSL development far exceeds LibreSSL, I believe they should fix OpenSSL instead of trying to fork it.
OpenSSL: http://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=shortlog http://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=shortlog
vs
LibreSSL: https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/commits/master https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/commits/master
Seems LibreSSL is a mainly a one-man band?
- CJefferson 12y agoYou are looking at the wrong repository -- that is a portable version of libressl (I agree it's non-obvious how to find the true repository, as it is stored in CVS). This is closer, and a bit busier: https://github.com/libressl-portable/openbsd https://github.com/libressl-portable/openbsd
- mp3geek 12y agoI stand corrected regarding the libressl repo, Regarding active development, it still doesn't look that busy. Sure more people committing but several days with no changes, vs the commit changes on OpenSSL.
- mrweasel 12y agoOpenBSD is about to tag 5.7 for release. During the release window commits normally drop to only include minor changes. Once the tree is tagged all the patches sitting in the developers private trees can go in. Regarding libressl I'm not sure how it works, but I think the OpenBSD cvs server is a better source that the github repo (http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libssl/ http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libssl/), but I'm not sure. Also I'm not sure that a rapid flow of commits are necessarily a good indicator of quality.