Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be great if the gc.m4 module could be taught not to fail when
> no random devices exist (as seen on hppa2.0-hp-hpux10.20). Passing
>
> --disable-random-device --disable-pseudo-random-device \
> --disable-nonce-device
>
> did not help. li
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now that this is settled, I'm beginning to think that the random
> functions should be decoupled from GC fully. I.e., there should be a
> standalone module 'random', and then gc-random could use it. This is
> more similar to other gc modules. IIRC,
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson wrote on Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:41:29PM CET:
>>
>> Seems good. I installed this. Review appreciated (untested).
>
> All good except for:
>
>> +if test "$NAME_OF_NONCE_RANDOM_DEVICE" != "no"; then
>> + AC_CHECK_FILE($NAME_O
* Simon Josefsson wrote on Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 02:41:29PM CET:
>
> Seems good. I installed this. Review appreciated (untested).
All good except for:
> +if test "$NAME_OF_NONCE_RANDOM_DEVICE" != "no"; then
> + AC_CHECK_FILE($NAME_OF_NONCE_DEVICE,,
> +AC_MSG_WARN([[Device `$NAME
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
> * Simon Josefsson wrote on Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:36:28AM CET:
>> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Better, thanks. But
>> > --disable-random-device (--enable-random-devide=no)
>> > could IMVHO still be given a use
Hi Simon,
* Simon Josefsson wrote on Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:36:28AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Better, thanks. But
> > --disable-random-device (--enable-random-devide=no)
> > could IMVHO still be given a useful meaning, which it currently does not
> > have. Sin
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Better, thanks. But
> --disable-random-device (--enable-random-devide=no)
> could IMVHO still be given a useful meaning, which it currently does not
> have. Since I don't actually use this code in any project, I can't tell
> you how realistic this
Hi Simon,
* Simon Josefsson wrote on Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:17:13PM CET:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> It would be great if the gc.m4 module could be taught not to fail when
> >> no random devices exist (as seen on hppa2.0-h
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It would be great if the gc.m4 module could be taught not to fail when
>> no random devices exist (as seen on hppa2.0-hp-hpux10.20). Passing
>>
>> --disable-random-device --disable-pseudo-random-devic
