From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Feb 19 20: 9: 3 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id ADDBF37BDE6; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:09:00 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA42161;
	Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:08:44 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
To: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org>
Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	Victor Salaman <salaman@teknos.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: openssl in -current 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:28:25 PST."
             <38AF5F59.A0BEC49@gorean.org> 
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:08:44 -0800
Message-ID: <42158.951019724@zippy.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Victor Salaman wrote:
> > 
> > > I personally think that it's braindead to add openssl to the system
> > > and stripout parts of it (RSA & IDEA). Don't get me wrong, I love to
> > > have
> 
> Pardon me for coming late to the party, but what was the rationale behind
> putting openssl into the source anyway? Given the rsa/no rsa problems, not
> to mention the US vs. the world problems, what were the benefits that
> outweighed the complications? Note, I'm not trying to be critical here, I'm
> just interested in the thought process behind the decision.

I think the idea was to eventually bundle openssh into the system, but
this now look comparatively difficult enough that I'm definitely
having second thoughts about the whole thing.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message