Martin Paljak wrote:
> I still suggest to reap it out and re-package as a separate entity
> only after somebody discovers that it is used.
I am in favor.
//Peter
___
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-pr
On 26.10.2009, at 12:35, Diego Elio “Flameeyes” Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno Mon, 26/10/2009 alle 12.22 +0200, Martin Paljak ha scritto:
>>
>> So it seems we have a nsplugin user and new developer?
>> Do you use it? Would you be willing to maintain/develop it?
>
> Actually, no to all counts.
>
> I
On 26.10.2009, at 12:22, Martin Paljak wrote:
> As I've also written a web signing plugin for Firefox/Opera/Safari I
> can say it has changed from "Netscape plugins" to a more useful,
> cross-browser API. I don't know if the current signer can do it. But
> it's not trivial, for example on OS
Il giorno Mon, 26/10/2009 alle 12.22 +0200, Martin Paljak ha scritto:
>
> So it seems we have a nsplugin user and new developer?
> Do you use it? Would you be willing to maintain/develop it?
Actually, no to all counts.
I just stumbled across this after last opensc update in Gentoo; I'm
doing QA
Hi,
So it seems we have a nsplugin user and new developer?
Do you use it? Would you be willing to maintain/develop it?
nsplugin has not seen any real *development* for 8 years :
http://www.opensc-project.org/opensc/log/trunk/src/signer
As I've also written a web signing plugin for Firefox/Opera/S
The attached patch simplifies the Makefile.am support for building the
nsplugin. Beside removing the recursion inside npincludes (unneeded),
and avoiding entering the directory entirely when nsplugin is disabled,
it also avoids building the static copy of the plugin itself (see [1])
and at the same
