[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?

From: Simo Sorce <ssorce redhat com>
To: fedora-devel-list redhat com
Subject: Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:19:32 -0400

On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 16:11 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 
> Well for that matter GLibC itself has MD5 in it....

Quick! Make it depend on NSS! :-)

/simo with 3 packages with the same bug filed I can't possibly fix as
NSS simply do not have the relevant algorithms ...

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: Robert Relyea

References:
- Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: Bernardo Innocenti
- Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: Thomas M Steenholdt
- Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: Steve Grubb
- Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: John Dennis
- Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: Rex Dieter
- Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: seth vidal
- Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: Daniel P. Berrange
- Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: Tomas Mraz
- Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: Bastien Nocera
- Re: Should we settle on one SSL implementation?
  - From: Daniel P. Berrange

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]