On 10/27/05, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:49:53 +0530, Pradosh > Adoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > pradosh.adoni> though it has been fairly established that the > pradosh.adoni> resulting ABI will in all probabilty break in > pradosh.adoni> forthcoming (major) versions, It would be good to know > pradosh.adoni> if there exists some sort of timeline or roadmap on > pradosh.adoni> when these issues will be addressed. > > There is no timeline. You can't really expect one from a volunteer- > driven project, as it hugely depends on the spare time of the > controling participants. Sorry ... this was more a shot in the dark than anything ... of course one cannot expect commitments in community driven projects (I'm not trying to be sarcastic :) )...
> pradosh.adoni> for eg. Of the current list of interfaces which ones > pradosh.adoni> are most definitely going to be deprecated in future > pradosh.adoni> versions ? > > For the longest time, we have recommended to use the EVP interface > rather than lower level crypto functions. However, not even the EVP > interface has been safe from incompatible changes, BUT those changes > have been comparatively few. so ,would it make more sense to standardize on the EVP interface as opposed to the lower level functions ? This would force developers seeking LSB certification to go by that recommendation, unfortunately we can't say how well this would be accepted. Or if we do standardize on the lower level stuff , then we would need to indentify interfaces which are ABSOULTELY NOT going to change in the coming versions, but I don't know how feasible that is .. thanks, -- pradosh ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
