Hi, > Patch modified to keep backwards compatibility with HAVE_NETTLEHASH > because, why not? and applied. Looks like a sensible idea.
Indeed, much better. Thank you -- Best Regards, Vladislav Grishenko > -----Original Message----- > From: Dnsmasq-discuss <dnsmasq-discuss-boun...@lists.thekelleys.org.uk> On > Behalf Of Simon Kelley > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:15 AM > To: dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Rename HAVE_NETTLEHASH to > HAVE_CRYPTOHASH > > 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 _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
