> i have cleaned up sha1 as well, but that was not audited for musl
>
> http://port70.net/~nsz/crypt/
They cleaned up very nicely! I would nix the OpenSSL compat
layer in the sbase patches, but still, very nice.
> That's cool. I will spend some time today or tomorrow to re-write the
> code and s
* sin [2013-07-03 14:43:24 +0300]:
> That's cool. I will spend some time today or tomorrow to re-write the
> code and send in patch v4.
>
> If that's fine then I can also proceed with sha1sum(1).
>
i have cleaned up sha1 as well, but that was not audited for musl
http://port70.net/~nsz/crypt/
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 01:16:35PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Robert Ransom [2013-07-03 10:26:03 +]:
> > On 7/3/13, Galos, David wrote:
> > >> Added LICENSE.lpl as well and updated the license and copyright details
> > >> for
> > >> the md5 code.
> > >
> > > I am considering applying thi
* Robert Ransom [2013-07-03 10:26:03 +]:
> On 7/3/13, Galos, David wrote:
> >> Added LICENSE.lpl as well and updated the license and copyright details
> >> for
> >> the md5 code.
> >
> > I am considering applying this patch. The license is why I have to take
> > time to think. I'm worried abo
On 7/3/13, Galos, David wrote:
>> Added LICENSE.lpl as well and updated the license and copyright details
>> for
>> the md5 code.
>
> I am considering applying this patch. The license is why I have to take
> time to think. I'm worried about setting a precedent which allows external
> differently-l
> Added LICENSE.lpl as well and updated the license and copyright details for
> the md5 code.
I am considering applying this patch. The license is why I have to take
time to think. I'm worried about setting a precedent which allows external
differently-licensed software to be swept into sbase. It
