Le 26/03/2014 10:16, Olaf Westrik a écrit :
On 2014-03-25 23:22, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote:
On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
Do you want openSSL instead of Nettle? If so, why?
Cheers,
Simon.
I would prefer OpenSSL support.
As a developer for a cross-compiled x86 open source project (AstLinux)
building and maintaining additional libraries (particularly crypto) is
not ideal when so many packages already require OpenSSL.
We also try to keep the "bloat" out as much as possible, our
compressed images are around 40 MB in size.
Your excellent dnsmasq is one of our core packages, it would be our
preference if it also supported the time tested OpenSSL shared libraries.
Obviously using Nettle is not a deal breaker, but I think OpenSSL vs.
Nettle is a good discussion to have.
I happen to be in a similar position as Lonnie.
Since we use packages that use OpenSSL (Apache, OpenVPN, wget, Perl
SSLeay), we already ship the openssl libraries and not nettle.
Surely the addition of nettle, statically linked if need be, is not
something that will double the size of our image. I am more concerned
with the addition of yet another software package that needs to be
monitored.
If the license issue can be solved, would it be an option to use either
nettle or openssl depending on something like make -DUSE_NETTLE or make
-DUSE_OPENSSL?
Seconded (albeit not as a packager, but as an end user occasionally
building dnsmasq), except I would prefer something along the lines of
-DCRYPTOLIB=OPENSSL / -DCRYPTOLIB=NETTLE.
Olaf
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
