* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > You forgot to mention that we'd actually like to get away from being > tied closely to OpenSSL because it has caused license grief in the > past (not to mention that it's fairly dirty to manage).
While I agree with this sentiment (and have complained bitterly about OpenSSL's license in the past), I'd rather see us implement this (perhaps with a shim layer, if that's possible/sensible) even if only OpenSSL is supported than to not have the capability at all. It seems highly unlikely we'd ever be able to drop support for OpenSSL completely; we've certainly not made any progress towards that and I don't think forgoing adding new features would make such a change any more or less likely to happen. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature