On 19 November 2015 at 15:39, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <u...@ll.mit.edu > wrote:
> > > >I believe the maintenance costs for pure C implementations in such > >separate libcryptolegacy or even in the main C library would be quite > >minimal. > > 100% concur, based on my experience maintaining code (going back enough > decades to know :). > > Heh. I actually tested building all releases of openssl after 0.9.7 a few months back - several refuse to build with the default options on 64 bit. In addition my experience shows that compilers get stricter over time, so old code will general need changes to work with newer compilers (even when you're only talking over a relatively short period such as 5 years). Now if this code were included in openssl but disabled by default then these problems would exist but simply be hidden until someone tried to use it. Given the user would then have to fix them (since no one else cares about their favourite dead algorithm) I don't really see what advantage having the code in the main tree offers. Cheers Rich.
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
