Ok, sounds to me like we certainly have a critical mass of volunteers to review the patch, give feedback and help clean it up. So Olaf, now it's just up to you to provide a convincing patch. Note that the goal should be to make the result clean/neat, not the patch itself minimal. So if you want/need to move existing gnutls stuff around a bit to make the result nicer, that's totally fine. Oh, and please do include additional testcases, especially if you add OpenSSL-specific options.
Oh, and even if this patch happens and is acceptable, GnuTLS will remain the default choice and what we will continue strongly recommend distributions to use, if possible (i.e. if GnuTLS is available for the platform). Happy hacking! Christian On 11/04/2015 05:39 PM, silvioprog wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Tomas Heran <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> Definitely count me in! >> >> Cheers, >> Tomas >> >> On 11/04/2015 10:50 AM, Olaf Buddenhagen wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> My employer considers implementing optional support for openssl as an >>> alternative to gnutls in libmicrohttpd, as CoreOS apparently doesn't >>> want to ship any SSL library besides openssl. So I need to solicit some >>> feedback on whether anyone else would be interested in having openssl >>> support? >>> >>> -antrik- >>> >> > Me too! +1 >
