libressl vs openssl

Jan Stary hans at
Thu Jan 11 15:17:36 UTC 2018

On Jan 11 07:07:42, ryandesign at wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2018, at 14:49, Jan Stary wrote:
> > On Jan 09 09:40:23, Blair Zajac wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >> "Although BoringSSL is an open source project, it is not intended for general use, as OpenSSL is. We don't recommend that third parties depend upon it. Doing so is likely to be frustrating because there are no guarantees of API or ABI stability.”
> >> 
> >> If projects link statically against an SSL library, then BoringSSL maybe fine, but probably not as a shared library used by many packages.
> > 
> > As opposed to a static library used by many packages?
> Ideally, ports should not link with static libraries; they should link with dynamic libraries. That way they receive bug fixes as soon as the port that provides the library is updated.

Yes. But my note was regrding the suitabilty of LibreSSL/BoringSSL
as an alternative to OpenSSL - that has nothing to do with static/shared
- you can say the same about each of them.

More information about the macports-dev mailing list