I apologize for restating these questions from earlier this morning in the other context, but, this post to devel sans context isn't an answer to the them.
This post is completely separate from this mornings discussion, which was purely concerning the details of the notes from Edinburgh.
[ For this playing at home, I have a summary of the Edinburgh Hackathon which I'm intending on sending out. However, there is currently a difference in recollection of exactly what was discussed at the Hackathon with regard to rxk5's crypto library. Once that's resolved, I'll be sending out those notes]
My impression, without wanting to misquote them, is that the gatekeepers do not want to get into the business of OpenAFS maintaining its own crypto library, when there is an existing, proven, library under a permissive library that's in widespread use. I'm certainly in favour of this - OpenAFS has enough code to look after, and few enough bodies to do it, without reinventing another wheel.
What I was hoping to discuss is the best mechanism for integrating hcrypto into our build mechanism, rather than rehashing the debate about k5ssl, which I believe has already been done to death.
Cheers, Simon. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
