On 01/04/14 19:14, Nathan Dorfman wrote:
> With such superior understanding, shouldn't you be adding OpenSSL support
> to dnsmasq yourself? That way you can deal with their byzantine API and the
> resulting bugs, and Simon can instead do something actually worthwhile.
> 
> 
But don't do that before the licensing issue has been resolved. The
motive for moving from openSSL to (not openSSL) was largely about
incompatible licenses. Delving into the git repo and finding the openSSL
adapter code is the least of the problems.

... and if anyone is volunteering to do a code audit, can I ask they
consider auditing the dnsmasq DNSSEC code, which is orders of magnitude
less mature than either openSSL _or_ Nettle? Let's get our priorities
right here.


Simon.


> 
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Brad Smith <b...@comstyle.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/04/14 2:02 PM, Nathan Dorfman wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe OpenSSL is the right choice anyway, I don't know. But, I thought
>>> someone should speak up for nettle :)
>>>
>>
>> speaking up for nettle means nothing when you don't understand the
>> issue at hand.
>>
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
> 


_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to