In message <[email protected]> on Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:08:17 +0000, "[email protected] via RT" <[email protected]> said:
rt> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Richard Levitte via RT <[email protected]> wrote: rt> > I think that's a discussion that deserves its own new thread on openssl-dev. rt> > rt> > A RT ticket is *not* the right place for a philosophical discussion. Closing rt> > this. Please don't respond on this message, create a new thread instead. rt> rt> Thanks Richard. rt> rt> For me, its not open for debate. Its a point of data egress, so it rt> must not occur. What others do is there business. rt> rt> I'll configure without the "data loss" feature, and others can do what rt> they want :) Well, how about you go after the calls then. Complaining about the existence of OPENSSL_die or OPENSSL_assert is about as fruitful as complaining about the existence of abort() or assert()... That's how this "philosophical discussion" started out that that's your complaint, isn't it? If not, I'd like you to clarify. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte [email protected] OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
