Peter and Alexander have answered for me. This feature is implemented (for example) in openssh client and I can't imagine that people at openssh project waste their time implementing useless things.
And indeed, it's a nice feature. Why would one impose two files when only one (the private key file) is enough? JL -----Message d'origine----- De : Simon Josefsson [mailto:si...@josefsson.org] Envoyé : vendredi 27 mars 2009 18:40 À : libssh2 development Objet : Re: RE : RE : RE : For the interested ones:libssh2_userauth_publickey_fromfileandlibssh2_userauth_hostbased_fromfilewith no need of the publickeyfile "Jean-Louis CHARTON" <jean-louis.char...@oikialog.com> writes: > maybe my suggestion to make the publickeyfile parameter optional is > not interesting at all. I haven't understood exactly when this would be useful? I could look into implementing this for libgcrypt if you just separate the OpenSSL specific stuff into openssl.h/openssl.c. It could also be acceptable that the libgcrypt-port does not have this feature until someone implements it. /Simon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ libssh2-devel mailing list libssh2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libssh2-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ libssh2-devel mailing list libssh2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libssh2-devel
