On 16 Sep 2014 11:32, "Daniel Stenberg" <daniel_at_haxx.se> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> You make OpenSSL calls and only add the functionality to the openssl.c
file so your patch can not work with anything but OpenSSL, and I for one
want that addressed before I consider the patch ready for inclusion.
> I have a slightly less rigid attitude: as long as there's a good story
about the alternative backends, that they don't break the build and the
limitation is documented, then I'm fine with an implementation that "heads
further" with one of the backends than the other(s). If not, we'll get a
situation where the multitude of backends will hamper innovation as users
will just not do things.
I agree. In fact, we're already in this situation. For example, complied
against OpenSSL the user can pass just the private key file, but with
libgcrypt they must also pass the public key.
Received on 2014-09-16