Hi there,
Richard's standard mail address is on sick-leave due to some server hardware
failures. He's asked me to forward this to the list on his behalf (ie. the
response is his, not mine, but I agree with what he's said anyhow).
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, [iso-8859-1] Götz Babin-Ebell wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > levitte 29-Mar-2001 09:45:09
> >
> > Modified: crypto/des Tag: OpenSSL_0_9_6-stable xcbc_enc.c speed.c
> > pcbc_enc.c ofb_enc.c ofb64enc.c ncbc_enc.c
> > ede_cbcm_enc.c ecb_enc.c des_opts.c des_enc.c des.h
> > cfb_enc.c cfb64enc.c cbc_cksm.c
> > . Tag: OpenSSL_0_9_6-stable CHANGES
> > Log:
> > Since there has been reports of clashes between OpenSSL's
> > des_encrypt() and des_encrypt() defined on some systems (Solaris and
> > Unixware and maybe others), we rename des_encrypt() to des_encrypt1().
> > This should have very little impact on external software unless
> > someone has written a mode of DES, since that's all des_encrypt() is
> > meant for.
>
> I think OPENSSL_des_encrypt would have been a better choice...
In a way you have a good point, it does make the ownership clear. At the same
time, it really breaks sharply with the names of the rest of the DES section
making it kind of an odd orphan. In any case, we seem to have some kind of
vague plan to rename symbols in the few sections where they have lower-case
prefixes. Those plans apply to 0.9.7-dev, and I do believe that a change that
is more drastic than tucking a 1 at the end of the name is just too much for
0.9.6a. Maybe I have some weird kind of aesthetics.
I'd like to know what the rest of the team thinks in this matter.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
