On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Doug Barton wrote:
> > This doesn't help. The RSA source not being there isn't the problem, the
> > problem is that there are two different binary versions depending on how
> > you build it (with rsaref or not).
>
> So we do what we do with DES. By default you have openssl without RSA, and
> the RSA version is available as an after market distribution. All that's
> required is the work necessary to make the two openssl distributions.
Already done.
> As for the ports, most of the ports that have the ability to use
> RSA also have the ability to turn it off (TMK), usually through a
> configure --variable. The ones that don't can have warnings spit out.
> Until the patent runs out, leaving RSA as a port seems to be the only
> reasonable alternative.
This actually isn't true. Things like openssh, sslwrap, sslproxy, stunnel,
etc, all require it by design. But as I've already pointed out, when a
user tries to install the port and they dont have RSA, they'll get a
warning telling them how to get the package which provides it.
Kris
----
"How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man?"
"Eight!"
"That was a rhetorical question!"
"Oh..then, seven!" -- Homer Simpson
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
