Subject: Re: Userland crypto changes
To: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 08/19/2005 15:50:05
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 06:28:12PM +0300, Elad Efrat wrote:
> matthew green wrote:
> > not sure i really see the benefit. do other systems do this?
> > what's the compelling reason behind it?
> Since we already have include/crypto, it's only logical to have
> the headers that are related to crypto inside, I think. If that's
> not a welcome step (for whatever reason that may be) I won't
> argue over it. What I'm more looking to do is the other changes
> I mentioned.
I think the libc changes sound fine, but I'm not an expert there.
If you want to move headers around, I vote for leaving a header where it=20
is now (don't symlink) but have it include the one from include/crypto.
I've had negative experiences in the past with headers turning into=20
symlinks between updates. If we don't have to, I'd vote we don't do that.=
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----