Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> Holger Reif wrote:
> >
> > There has been a discussion on this recently. The conclusion was
> > it should be changed. I think it was even aggred on how to do
> > this. But I think nobody took the task of actually implementing
> > it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)
>
> You are right. Not sure we entirely got to the end of "do we break
> everything or do it upwards compatibly?", though. Upwards compatibility
> is easy, so why not, I say...
>
Well I did some changes which make this kind of thing much easier to do.
All the PEM routines are now made from macros: changing the macros
automatically changes all the routines.
I think the consensus was slightly in favour of "break everything" but
it was pretty much equal. Since the fix to broken code is trivial (add
an extra NULL and ignore an extra parameter in the callback) it
shouldn't be too painful.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. http://www.drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk/
Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior crypto engineer, Celo Communications: http://www.celocom.com/
Core developer of the OpenSSL project: http://www.openssl.org/
Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key: via homepage.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
