Hi, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, your patch changes the external API/ABI, which is something > we _really_ don't want to do unless we can avoid it. Only `_gnutls' functions are changed so does that really count as an API/ABI change (given that the `_gnutls' functions are not part of the documented API and are not meant to be used by application programs)? However, changing `_E_gnutls_openpgp_raw_privkey_to_gkey' may be an issue (ABI change in `libgnutls-extra'). Also, my understanding was that the API/ABI policy may be less strict for 1.7 than for 1.6? > It seems a better patch would be to have > _gnutls_openpgp_raw_privkey_to_gkey be able to figure out the format > of the input automatically -- that seems possible to implement. Just > go over the input and look for non-ASCII characters (or just some > specific non-ASCII character like \0, which I assume is guaranteed to > always be present in OpenPGP binary keys, to avoid problems with > non-ASCII characters in a Comment: field or similar), and set the > armor flag accordingly. What do you think? If you agree, I'd > appreciate if you could suggest a specific patch to implement this. That seems like a fragile solution, especially since the information (the input format) is already explicitly passed in `gnutls_openpgp_privkey_import ()'. That said, perhaps we could implement this solution for 1.6 and keep the other one (or something similar) for 1.7. Would that be acceptable? > Btw, to be able to use your patch, we'd might need a copyright > assignment, if the patch is large.. would that be a problem? I can > send you the forms offline. No problem, you can send it to me. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Help-gnutls mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnutls
