From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Aug 20 4:47:49 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC4F37B424; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 04:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id EAA25074; Sun, 20 Aug 2000 04:47:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 04:47:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Mike Harding Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: OpenSSL 0.9.5a merge In-Reply-To: <20000820113937.36B8DE6A02@netcom1.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Mike Harding wrote: > > Kris - would it be reasonable to support the port as a way to 'tune' > your SSL? It already seems to pick up the right CPU and all and so > you could theoretically do a NO_OPENSSL=YES if you are a power user > and use the ports. You would just want the port to drop the library > in the right place... I don't want to support that because it's a whole extra set of unknowns. I understand the lack of assembler code is an issue, but once that is solved it shouldn't be necessary. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message