William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Mads Toftum wrote: >> GPG will most likely be added to the mix as well given the planned >> design, but other than that I think that'll be ok. I was looking at the >> notice for httpd earlier and that one deviates from what BadCA needs >> because crypto isn't optional here. > > Yes - it is a little different, and if we bind later to some libgpg we > can address it then.
There are plans to bind to some gpg libs. > >> As for the bit about the crypto living on an obscure branch of apr, that >> wasn't the case last time BadCA was active - at that point the code was >> in trunk. > > Right, I was just making the observation that apr is still on the hook > even though it isn't a shipping product, and for BadCA I hope we do finally > round out the API to satisfy the objections from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (and ship > a 1.4.0 > officially that BadCA can consume). Erm, well, badca hasn't ever been related to APR, so I was a little confused by the initial assertion. I'll have a look and get a notice added, though I'm not 100% sure where it needs to go. To clarify - badca isn't planned, nor has it ever been planned, to be a consumer of apr. david > > Bill > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > !DSPAM:16,4865259273203999710783! > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
