On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 12:53, Mikhail Glushenkov
<mikhail.glushen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it doesn't result in too much of a slowdown, I think it would make
> sense to do this change. I'd recommend making the choice between
> ed25519/eccrypto configurable via a flag so that we could compare the
> two. I'm cc:ing Edsko, who is the main author of hackage-security.

Looking closer at eccrypto, I can identify the following issues:

1) eccrypto has a larger dependency footprint than ed25519, which only
depends on GHC boot libraries
2) ed25519 is much better documented
3) eccrypto is quite new and not as mature as ed25519, which is based
on the reference implementation

However, I still think that we could accept a patch adding support for
eccrypto as a compile-time option (not enabled by default).
cabal-devel mailing list

Reply via email to