On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 5 February 2016 at 20:55, Nicolas Dechesne <nicolas.deche...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> >> > Agreed - some may not want openssl at all and being able to switch it >> > for >> > another alternative would be useful. >> >> sure. but, then I have some questions.. >> >> 1. which one we default to? openssl? >> >> 2. which one we support, from configure.ac: >> >> [choose SHA1 implementation])]) >> case "x$with_sha1" in >> x | xlibc | xlibmd | xlibnettle | xlibgcrypt | xlibcrypto | xlibsha1 | >> xCommonCrypto | xCryptoAPI) >> ;; > > > nettle / gcrypt / crypto are all in oe-core. I presume that's BSD's "throw > it all in" libc. > > nettle seems nice and low down the stack and modern.
Nettle has licensing issues for some (GPLv2 libraries aren't acceptable if you want to link with proprietary code and LGPLv3 isn't acceptable if you want to lock down your rootfs). Since mesa libs are somewhat likely to get linked with proprietary applications, openssl might be a safer choice here? >> >> 3. is there a good way to handle 'multiple choice' with PACKAGECONFIG? >> How can we prevent more than 1 PACKAGECONFIG to be set (nicely)? > > > With a comment saying "pick one of these", and nothing in the disabled case. > > Ross > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
