Re: [CryptoAPI-devel] Is keeping the patches available through the SF.net "Files" section beneficial?

[Herbert V. R. <hv...@hv...>]

On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 22:25, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> > well, in order to do so, we should convince them in the first place,
> > that cryptoapi's cryptoloop and the crypotapi itself is a mature piece
> > of code...
> i guess making the ciphers endian independant is the first issue...
I fixed 4 lately, rc5, rc6, blowfish and another aes finalist I don't
remember....=20

I remember issues with idea, dfc and maybe one else (see my last mail
regarding this issue)...
=20
> > the unclear state of maintenance has earned this project a bad
> > reputation; and jari's negative press (which only in part was true)
> > hasn't helped much either...=20
> i have a question about this, does cryptoapi replace kernel-int or does
> kernel-int still exist?
cryptoapi is just a name for the tarball packaging I chosed, since
nonpatch-int sounded too stupid for a non-patch distribution ;)
=20
also cryptoapi seemed a good buzzword... :-)

i.e. patch-int and cryptoapi are supposed to mean the same... should we
get cryptoapi-0.1.0.tar.gz (or whatever version it may become) ready

the patch-int's will have to carry names as

patch-int-2.4.18-0.1.0.gz

...in order to better reflect the versioning scheme...

regards,
--=20
Herbert Valerio Riedel       /    Phone: (EUROPE) +43-1-58801-18840
Email: hv...@hv...       /    Finger hv...@gn... for GnuPG Public Key
GnuPG Key Fingerprint: 7BB9 2D6C D485 CE64 4748  5F65 4981 E064 883F
4142