On Wed, 18 Oct 2017, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote: > OpenSSL developers believed that there was a need for a significant > change. A part of that change was a conscious choice to break (some > of) the existing API. They considered that pain unavoidable. So far I > happen to agree with their rationale and approach. Move from visible > internal structures to accessor functions is a good thing, regardless > of what you may think of it. And the new API *is* better, again like > it or not. > > I understand the frustration with lack of a “migration library”, > but how to you see a “shim” that allows code that relies on being > able to directly access members of structures, run unmodified (just > recompiled)? You've got this exactly backwards. We don't want a shim that allows OpenSSL-1.1 to present a OpenSSL-1.0 API. We want a shim that allows us to use the OpenSSL-1.1 API when using OpenSSL-1.0, so we don't have to maintain a forest of #ifdefs. _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
