Update from polarssl to mbed 1.3.11

This patch updates the polarssl package to build the current mbed 1.3.x release.

It also prefixes the generated binaries with mbed_, to avoid names that overlap with other packages (like sha1sum) or that are generic and confusing (like selftest or hello).

This patch updates the polarssl package to build the current mbed 1.3.x release.

It also prefixes the generated binaries with mbed_, to avoid names that overlap with other packages (like sha1sum) or that are generic and confusing (like selftest or hello).

Signed-off-by Ed Swierk <[email protected]>

---
 package/polarssl/0001-no-test-suite.patch          | 27 ----------------------
 ...he-standard-CMake-flag-to-drive-the-share.patch | 18 +++++++--------
 package/polarssl/polarssl.hash                     |  4 ++--
 package/polarssl/polarssl.mk                       | 17 +++++++++++---
 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 package/polarssl/0001-no-test-suite.patch

Dear Ed Swierk,

Quoted 7 lines · Ed Swierk

This patch updates the polarssl package to build the current mbed 1.3.x release.

It also prefixes the generated binaries with mbed_, to avoid names that overlap with other packages (like sha1sum) or that are generic and confusing (like selftest or hello).

Quoted 8 lines

Signed-off-by Ed Swierk <[email protected]>

---
 package/polarssl/0001-no-test-suite.patch          | 27 ----------------------
 ...he-standard-CMake-flag-to-drive-the-share.patch | 18 +++++++--------
 package/polarssl/polarssl.hash                     |  4 ++--
 package/polarssl/polarssl.mk                       | 17 +++++++++++---
 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 package/polarssl/0001-no-test-suite.patch

Thanks for your patch. However, following Gustavo's comment, I've marked your patch as "Changes Requested" in our patch tracking system. Can you resubmit a new version that takes into account Gustavo's comments?

Quoted 4 lines

Thanks for your patch. However, following Gustavo's comment, I've marked your patch as "Changes Requested" in our patch tracking system. Can you resubmit a new version that takes into account Gustavo's comments?

Since it anyway is not compatible and upstream changed name, perhaps it's
better just to create a new package called mbedtls? When we remove polarssl we can make a legacy entry to point to mbedtls.

Arnout, Ed,

Quoted 8 lines · Arnout Vandecappelle

Quoted 4 lines

Thanks for your patch. However, following Gustavo's comment, I've marked your patch as "Changes Requested" in our patch tracking system. Can you resubmit a new version that takes into account Gustavo's comments?

Since it anyway is not compatible and upstream changed name, perhaps it's
better just to create a new package called mbedtls? When we remove polarssl we can make a legacy entry to point to mbedtls.

Why would we remove polarssl? Is the project dead? Or is mbedtls its replacement?

Other than that, yes: if mbedtls is like a new library that is incompatible with polarssl, then a separate package is the best option.

Quoted 13 lines · Thomas Petazzoni

Arnout, Ed,

Quoted 8 lines · Arnout Vandecappelle

Quoted 4 lines

Thanks for your patch. However, following Gustavo's comment, I've marked your patch as "Changes Requested" in our patch tracking system. Can you resubmit a new version that takes into account Gustavo's comments?

Since it anyway is not compatible and upstream changed name, perhaps it's
better just to create a new package called mbedtls? When we remove polarssl we can make a legacy entry to point to mbedtls.

Quoted 5 lines

Why would we remove polarssl? Is the project dead? Or is mbedtls its replacement?

Other than that, yes: if mbedtls is like a new library that is incompatible with polarssl, then a separate package is the best option.

mbedtls is polarssl, it just got renamed when they got bought by ARM. Adding to confusion this was done with the 1.3+ branches but not with 1.2 (which is in security maintenance).
It was to reflect that polarssl (now mbedtls) is the crypto library for the mbed operating system, even though it still works with linux (likely they enabled this with 1.3+ but never backported to 1.2- hence keeping the old name). Last time i've checked the 1.2 and 1.3 series couldn't coexist sanely on the same system, and since programs checks for polarssl rather than mbedtls for now it's probably still the case.
rtmpdump can use any of the three optionally (gnutls, openssl, polarssl), dunno if it can handle 1.3+
curl needs 1.3+ (we never enabled polarssl support).
Newer hiawatha needs 1.3+ (or can use bundled).
shairport-sync can use either polarssl or openssl (mandatory one of them), dunno

if it can handle 1.3+
openvpn can use openssl or polarssl (not 1.3+).
So it basically narrows down the choices, though it doesn't necessarily take down other packages.
Question is, keep 1.2 and some small targets small or go 1.3+ ? Also there's mbedtls 2.0.0 now, which, again, breaks API. And this has a better chance of living side by side with polarssl 1.2 since they've renamed everything it seems.

So the tarball called mbedtls installs a library called polarssl? Or does it
install a library called mbedtls with a symlink from polarssl?

Either way, since there's an API change, I still think it makes sense to make
it a new package - that's what we do with webkitgtk24 as well. If side-by-side is not possible, we can just make it depend on !polarssl or vice versa. It's a bit of a pain while we have both polarssl and mbedtls because of the extra select/depends stuff in the packages using it, but anyway most packages only have automatic dependencies in the .mk file.

With the API breakage in mbedtls 2.0 in mind, it's probably best to call the
new package mbedtls13 so we can eventually (when everything has migrated to 2.0 API) end up with just a single package mbedtls.

All this for a TLS library that has simplicity as its USP :-)