Re: [CryptoAPI-devel] musings...

[Kyle M. <ky...@de...>]

On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 02:53:41AM +0100, Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> hello!
> 
> I was tented myself, but then decided, that it wasn't worth it for just
> 2 files... :-) or even just one file, since the wordops.h should really
> go into asm... or into byteorder.h, as it's a generic algo...
>  
nod. i do think it would be a bit better convention though. since if it
gets merged into the kernel it will find a nice place in /usr/include.
this also follows the generic bsd convention for crypto. whatever you
wish though, since one file is just as easy.

> mmmh... I guess I should add you guys to the sf project sooner or
> later... do you have any sf id yet? :)
>  
yeah, kmc...@us...

> ...which bug? (sorry, I don't know right now what you are referring
> to... :-/)
>  
it's included in the blowfish bug report. has to do with the "c" for the
cipher being for only 256bit.

> btw, that's something I've spent the last few hours with... and finally
> also committed something to CVS about it... i.e. should be fixed :-)
>  
excellent!

> ok... since I'm going to get some sleep now, you've got plenty of hours
> to do that :-)
>  
righty-oh.

> > 1: is this alright? i'm not sure how many applications are actually
> >    using cryptoAPI, regardless, i have a simple shell script to
> >    recursively handle it.
> a few... i.e. yes, it would break them a bit :-)
> 
I shall leave it then.

> > 2: defined as KDIR, going with current convention. best settable by
> >    the user at `make' time.
> btw, if you have any suggestions for how to improve the makefile
> framework - just step forward! :-)
> 
> It was just a quick hack based on someone else's distro to get things
> running; but for a release it's still far too unpolished....
> 
sure thing. i'm trying to work out a way to easily determine the kernel
version. i think i'm going to have to fall back to frobbing the top
level kernel Makefile.

g'night,
	kyle
-- 
copyleft (c) 2002, Kyle McMartin