[lsb-discuss] crypto discussion
ddavis at novell.com
Wed Apr 23 14:49:31 PDT 2008
First off, I found this link useful in understanding NSS, others may as
Robert Schweikert wrote:
> One question from the LSB point of view we will have to answer is
> probably more political than anything else. If we were to add nss (at
> least parts as suggested by Ted) to the LSB are we picking a "winner" in
> the crypto area if we do not also include the openssl library?
I guess I wouldn't view it as picking a winner since as you point out,
we can include openssl at anytime when we think it is stable and ready.
A quick peruse of the various distributions and it appears all include
Mozilla NSS though not surprise since everyone includes Firefox. If
this is stable and ready to use, I don't see why we wouldn't include it
as part of a standard.
> I know, we generally add what is ready and requested and openssl does
> not appear to be ready from an API/ABI stability point of view while nss
> is. It is however a matter of perception. I am not arguing to keep nss
> out, just asking a question. I think adding nss would be a step in the
> right direction and we can always add openssl when the API/ABI settles
> down. In addition adding nss might give those who need crypto enough
> functionality even if they have to "port" from using openssl to nss.
> Now it may be that nss and openssl have some of the same interfaces and
> we don't care how a distribution provides those as long as they are
> there. But I do not know whether or not this is the case as I am pretty
> much in the dark about what interfaces the various libraries provide.
My only question would be if a distribution includes the Mozilla NSS
library (and not the mentioned subset and why one do a subset would
surprise me), then would that be sufficient to pass LSB?
More information about the lsb-discuss