Re: Concern about FedoraCryptoConsolidation

2013-05-09 Thread Matej Cepl
On 2013-05-07, 15:16 GMT, Paul Wouters wrote: >> I wouldn't be much worried about that project. See the date of that >> page and state of the (non-)consolidation in the current Fedora. > > We should be worried. The proliferance of basement crypto is a real > problem. I haven't said or meant that

Re: Concern about FedoraCryptoConsolidation

2013-05-07 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:24:29PM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 11:16 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Tue, 7 May 2013, Matej Cepl wrote: > > > > > Subject: Re: Concern about FedoraCryptoConsolidation > > > > > > On 2013

Re: Concern about FedoraCryptoConsolidation

2013-05-07 Thread Rob Crittenden
Richard Levenberg wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCryptoConsolidation While I understand the reasons for this idea of Consolidation I have a concern that very valid use cases are being ignored or unknown. As an example I have a use case supported with curl and OpenSSL like this: cur

Re: Concern about FedoraCryptoConsolidation

2013-05-07 Thread Tomas Mraz
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 11:16 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 7 May 2013, Matej Cepl wrote: > > > Subject: Re: Concern about FedoraCryptoConsolidation > > > > On 2013-05-07, 04:10 GMT, Richard Levenberg wrote: > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCryp

Re: Concern about FedoraCryptoConsolidation

2013-05-07 Thread Paul Wouters
On Tue, 7 May 2013, Matej Cepl wrote: Subject: Re: Concern about FedoraCryptoConsolidation On 2013-05-07, 04:10 GMT, Richard Levenberg wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCryptoConsolidation While I understand the reasons for this idea of Consolidation I have a concern that very

Re: Concern about FedoraCryptoConsolidation

2013-05-07 Thread Matej Cepl
On 2013-05-07, 04:10 GMT, Richard Levenberg wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCryptoConsolidation > > While I understand the reasons for this idea of Consolidation I have a > concern that very valid use cases are being ignored or unknown. As an > example I have a use case supported with