On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:39:10AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2015/09/21 10:31, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > > > > It's not that we don't trust you. > > But I think it's the first time I see that softhsm2 would be a totally > > different port (i.e. security/softhsm2). > > If that's the case, then yes of course your diff is fine. > > I am not entirely convinced that softhsm2 should be a different port > rather than just something we cut across to at a suitable point (let's see > how things go when it has matured; our approach to providing early versions > of a major release doesn't necessarily equate to FreeBSD/Debian's), but > I do agree with adding the limit for now so I've committed this. >
Thank you, I wanted to have this sorted out so I could start looking at a patch for a security issue that is fixed in the NetBSD port: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/security/softhsm/patches/patch-src_bin_softhsm-keyconv.cpp?annotate=1.1 I'll handle that in a separate thread once I have reproduced and fixed the problem. -- Patrik Lundin
