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 > Dnsmasqemail@example.com > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasqfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss