In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:44:38 -0700, "Banginwar, Rajesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rajesh.banginwar> Do you or anyone on this project have data rajesh.banginwar> suggesting which APIs are candidates for LSB rajesh.banginwar> inclusion both from demand and stability point of rajesh.banginwar> view? Quick answer, solely based on the header files and looking for the parts that do not expose there structures: EC, ECDH, ECDSA (although it exposes the signature structure, but I think that one's standardardised), pqueue, UI. ENGINE should also be here even though there are some exposed structures. Those structures are fairly well defined and are not subject to change soon, as far as I can predict. Quite honestly, even though I'm quite an enthusiastic OpenSSL developer for years and have been for years (since it started, really), I can't really recommend OpenSSL as an LSB candidate from that point of view, as it stands today. Every "major upgrade" (which we define as a change of x in 0.9.x) has had some kind of incompatibility with previous versions. Cheers, Richard ----- Please consider sponsoring my work on free software. See http://www.free.lp.se/sponsoring.html for details. -- Richard Levitte [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://richard.levitte.org/ "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C.S. Lewis ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
