openssl vs. libressl

[Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia]

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 17:31, René J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Monday November 09 2015 16:11:54 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> 
> hi,
> 
>>> Now what if you do
>>> 
>>> %> ln -s libssl.35.dylib libssl.1.0.0.dylib ?
>>> 
>>> (assuming that libressl indeed installs libssl.35.dylib)
>>> 
>>> If that works, it can be handled with a very simple post-destroot addition in both ports .
>> 
>> Don't do that.  There's a 99% chance it won't work for you.
> 
> You know what happens when you say that kind of thing to a Dutch (former) scientist, eh? ;)
> First quick tests (downloading a couple of release tarballs from github, with /opt/local/bin/curl) suggests that it works. Which doesn't really surprise me too much: both libraries are written in C. As long as dependent software sticks to public APIs (and those APIs are indeed compatible), the binary libraries should be compatible too, regardless of how different they are "behind the scenes".

The problem is that while the API is compatible, the ABI might not be.  Portions of OpenSSL / Libressl are implemented using macros, so the macros might be different in ways that don't appear immediately obvious.