> the header file has size_t and that seems to make more sense.
> no bump in pkgname since there is no change except for on 64-bit
> architectures where it didn't built in the first place.
> comments?
More consistent yes, ok.
Thank you.
>
> Index: patches/patch-crypto_c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: patches/patch-crypto_c
> diff -N patches/patch-crypto_c
> --- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
> +++ patches/patch-crypto_c 8 Sep 2005 00:24:03 -0000
> @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
> +$OpenBSD$
> +--- crypto.c.orig Wed Sep 7 18:22:23 2005
> ++++ crypto.c Wed Sep 7 18:22:58 2005
> +@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
> + * bits.
> + */
> +
> +-void md4lite(char *message, unsigned int len)
> ++void md4lite(char *message, size_t len)
> + {
> +
> + #ifndef HAVE_MD4
> +@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ void md4lite(char *message, unsigned int
> + * bits.
> + */
> +
> +-void md5lite(char *message, unsigned int len)
> ++void md5lite(char *message, size_t len)
> + {
> +
> + #ifndef HAVE_MD5
> +@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ void md5lite(char *message, unsigned int
> + * into 64 bits.
> + */
> +
> +-void rmd160lite(char *message, unsigned int len)
> ++void rmd160lite(char *message, size_t len)
> + {
> +
> + #ifndef HAVE_RMD160
> +@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ void rmd160lite(char *message, unsigned
> + * into 64 bits.
> + */
> +
> +-void sha1lite(char *message, unsigned int len)
> ++void sha1lite(char *message, size_t len)
> + {
> +
> + #ifndef HAVE_SHA1
