On 12/12/2017 06:48 PM, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: > On 2017-12-12 01:12, Moritz Warning wrote: >> On 12/11/2017 07:10 PM, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: >> [..] >>> Do you think it would be worth the effort to unify the cryptography >>> libraries in LEDE? >> >> This sounds like a huge task. > > It is and needs a conscious commitment and decision of the project. So I > thought it is best to discuss it on the mailing list. > >> Maybe you can extend a program so it supports a different crypto library >> that is also used in the LEDE/OpenWRT ecosystem. > > That is the idea. LEDE would have a policy like, “If it is not > impossible, packages need to use TLS library A and cryptography library > B.” Package maintainers would adapt the package to these libraries. Then > they would try to contribute the modifications to the upstream > maintainer in hope that upstream maintainer would take over the > maintenance of the modifications; otherwise, the package maintainer > would have to maintain the modifications for LEDE. >
As for the default packages (dnsmasq, dropbear, uhttpd, ..), it is always desirable, if not even a policy, to use as much common libs as possible. IMHO, policy changes won't help much. Just start contributing. - mwarning _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
