On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 01:15:12PM -0700, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 12:44:40PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 01:51:56PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > >
> > > > libbn is already part of OpenSSH; it's a trivial matter to make it
> I meant to say OpenSSL here, of course.
> > > > into a standalone library. In other words, we already include two
> > > > functionally equivalent bignum libraries in FreeBSD, so one of them
> > > > should go.
> > >
> > > I couldn't agree more :)
> > I'm going to word this strongly, mostly because I feel
> > strongly about the underlying issues.
> > The SSL one is known to be very slow, and was written
> > as a proof of concept by the author. Please read the
> > release notes; it is seriously slow. Replacing it will
> > increase your SSL performance significantly.
> I know of no-one who has developed patches to make OpenSSL work with
> an external math library (e.g. libgmp). The OpenSSL guys are very
> interested in cleaning up their legacy code; you should work with them
> if you are interested.
> In FreeBSD, the only use of the libgmp code is for non-speed-critical
> applications, so replacing it with a less efficient library doesn't
> cost anything. libgmp will still exist in ports for applications
> which want to make use of a more efficient library.
Am I understanding this correctly?
We currently have implemented a more efficient library than one you
propose expending effort to plug in?
You propose that people remove the currently implemented and more
efficient library and replace it with a less-efficient library of
non-native BSD origin?
Really? This hardly seems like a good idea.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message