On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:23:00AM -0600, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> CVSROOT:      /cvs
> Module name:  src
> Changes by:   j...@cvs.openbsd.org    2010/10/28 10:23:00
> 
> Removed files:
>       lib/libdes     : COPYRIGHT MODES.DES Makefile README VERSION 
>                        cbc3_enc.c cbc_cksm.c cbc_enc.c cfb64ede.c 
>                        cfb64enc.c cfb_enc.c des.c des.doc des_crypt.3 
>                        des_enc.c des_locl.h des_locl.org des_opts.c 
>                        ecb3_enc.c ecb_enc.c ede_enc.c enc_read.c 
>                        enc_writ.c fcrypt.c ncbc_enc.c ofb64ede.c 
>                        ofb64enc.c ofb_enc.c options.txt pcbc_enc.c 
>                        podd.h qud_cksm.c rand_key.c read_pwd.c 
>                        rnd_keys.c rpc_enc.c set_key.c shlib_version 
>                        sk.h spr.h str2key.c supp.c xcbc_enc.c 
>       lib/libdes/asm : des-som2.pl des-som3.pl des586.pl des686.pl 
>                        desboth.pl dx86-cpp.s dx86unix.cpp readme 
>                        win32.asm win32.uu x86ms.pl x86unix.pl 
> 
> Log message:
> remove libdes src/ports users have been switched to libcrypto

what is our definitive place for documenting the des stuff now?
"man -k des" is pretty hideous. note this entry:

DES_random_key, DES_set_key, DES_key_sched, DES_set_key_checked, 
DES_set_key_unchecked, DES_set_odd_parity, DES_is_weak_key, DES_ecb_encrypt, 
DES_ecb2_encrypt, DES_ecb3_encrypt, DES_ncbc_encrypt, DES_cfb_encrypt, 
DES_ofb_encrypt, DES_pcbc_encrypt, DES_cfb64_encrypt, DES_ofb64_encrypt, 
DES_xcbc_encrypt, DES_ede2_cbc_encrypt, DES_ede2_cfb64_encrypt, 
DES_ede2_ofb64_encrypt, DES_ede3_cbc_encrypt, DES_ede3_cbcm_encrypt, 
DES_ede3_cfb64_encrypt, DES_ede3_ofb64_encrypt, DES_cbc_cksum, DES_quad_cksum, 
DES_string_to_key, DES_string_to_2keys, DES_fcrypt, DES_crypt, DES_enc_read, 
DES_enc_write (3) - DES encryption

i can;t even work out what man page this is coming from!

so, what place is "correct"? des_crypt.3 looks like the best candidate,
but note that FILES is now totally irrelevant. the other candidate
appears to be crypt(3)...

confused,
jmc

Reply via email to