Billy Cole wrote:
>
> >> changes/fixes into that branch? Obviously everyone's going to have something
> >> different about "their version" of OpenSSL and I'm wondering how to do
> >> that while at the same time take advantage of the OpenSSL developers'
> >> updates.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why is that obvious? The right thing to do is to contribute back your
> >> modifications.
> >>
>
> Between our code base and the OpenSSL code base will exist a massive
> delta with respect to code changes (we are running on an unsupported
> embedded processor, various algorithms will be implemented in hw, etc.).
> Are you suggesting that I offload the maintenance aspect of this to the
> maintainers of OpenSSL? I have no problem with this, I just didn't think
> they would be open to this since they could quickly become swamped if
> more than a few companies, with changes the size I'm talking about, all
> decide to do contribuite their changes.
Its not clear to me why the changes should be massive, unless you've
flagrantly disregarded portability (and the ENGINE).
> I will consider this however. Let's
> say that the changes are *too* drastic though, then what? Thanks for the
> input.
Then you're up shit creek without a paddle.
> This brings me to a new question: How feasible is it to use the
> ENGINE stuff at this point? I figure if I'm going to be contributing
> anything useful, and since we'll be in an embedded environment, this is
> were it would go. Thanks again for the responses.
That's definitely what you should be doing.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
