From: Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

geoff> perhaps some consistency is in order, with optional backward
geoff> compatibility macros there for the legacy/lethargic? I assume
geoff> this would make the des_encrypt() problem go away?

Yes, that wold be a solution.  I would however avoid the macros
because des_encrypt() has different arguments in the sstem crypt.h,
and making a macro des_encrypt that leads to our definition would just
be confusing...  Perhaps macros for everything but des_encrypt for
0.9.6a and have them dropped in 0.9.7?

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chairman@Stacken   \ S-168 35  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
Redakteur@Stacken   \      SWEDEN       \ or +46-709-50 36 10
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis                -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Software Engineer, Celo Communications: http://www.celocom.com/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to