Thank you, Matt, Viktor, I very like "clearly written, sensibly commented and well documented" code:) It will be not a problem:) But if you are going to retire existing engines then looks like I have no choice.
Thank you, Alex. On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <openssl-us...@dukhovni.org > wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 04:34:34PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote: > > > Whether such a patch would be accepted though is an entirely different > > thing. Personally I would prefer new engines to be maintained outside of > > the OpenSSL tree. Inclusion in the OpenSSL tree implies that the OpenSSL > > dev team will support the code. That becomes very difficult/impossible > > if we do not have access to the hardware. > > In addition, in order to not dig the hole we're in deeper, the > contributed code would have to be high quality code. That is, > clearly written, sensibly commented and well documented. > > All in all, it seems unlikely that new engines will become part of > the OpenSSL official distribution. If anything, some existing > engines are likely to be retired. > > -- > Viktor. > _______________________________________________ > openssl-dev mailing list > To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev >
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
