On 24/01/2021 14:30, Vladislav Grishenko wrote: > Hi, > > > > Commit 2024f9729713fd657d65e64c2e4e471baa0a3e5b “Support hash function > from nettle (only)” has introduced HAVE_NETTLEHASH option (thanks, Petr!). > But, I think, there's no much sense to bind feature name to specific > cryptolib because this will require rename or introduce more similar > opts for some other cryptolib backend if/when it'll be available (for > example in my dnsmasq-openssl fork). > > If no objections, let's name it "cryptohash" early before 2.84 is out? > Sorry, have missed pre-2.83, but it has dns issues so unlikely be widely > deployed… > > Please refer patch attached. > >
Patch modified to keep backwards compatibility with HAVE_NETTLEHASH because, why not? and applied. Looks like a sensible idea. Cheers, Simon. > > -- > > Best Regards, Vladislav Grishenko > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list > Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss > _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
