Donovan Baarda writes: > On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:52 -0800, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > > The md5.h/md5c.c files allow "copy and use", but no modification of > > > the files. There are some alternative implementations, i.e. in glibc, > > > openssl, so a replacement should be sage. Any other requirements when > > > considering a replacement? > > One thing to consider is "degree of difficulty" :-) > > > > Matthias > > > > I believe the "plan" for md5 and sha1 and such is to use the much > > faster openssl versions "in the future" (based on a long thread > > debating future interfaces to such things on python-dev last summer). > > That'll sidestep any tedious license issue and give a better > > implementation at the same time. i don't believe anyone has taken the > > time to make such a patch yet. > > I wasn't around for that discussion. There are two viable replacements > for the RSA implementation currently used; > > libmd <http://www.penguin.cz/~mhi/libmd/> > openssl <http://www.openssl.org/>. > > The libmd implementation is by Colin Plumb and has the licence; "This > code is in the public domain; do with it what you wish." The API is > identical to the RSA implementation and BSD world's libmd and hence is a > drop in replacement. This implementation is faster than the RSA > implementation. > [...] > > Currently md5c.c is included in the python sources. The libmd > implementation has a drop in replacement for md5c.c. The openssl > implementation is a complicated tangle of Makefile expanded template > code that would be harder to include in the Python sources.
I would prefer that one as a short term solution. Patch at #1118602. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
