<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [GTK][EFL] CryptoDigest implementation depends on GnuTLS with LGPLv3+/GPLv2+ deps"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162913#c6">Comment # 6</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [GTK][EFL] CryptoDigest implementation depends on GnuTLS with LGPLv3+/GPLv2+ deps"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162913">bug 162913</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:zan@falconsigh.net" title="Zan Dobersek <zan@falconsigh.net>"> <span class="fn">Zan Dobersek</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=162913#c5">comment #5</a>)
<span class="quote">>
> I am going to propose both a libgcrypt implementation and an OpenSSL
> implmentation of CryptoDigest.
> </span >
This makes most sense to me. OpenSSL implementation should probably be kept downstream until WPE begins the upstream process.
<span class="quote">> Another alternative would be to resurrect the gcrypt backend in gnutls,
> since performance improved since its removal (nettle was preferred at the
> time).
> See <a href="https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20131215-gcrypt-bench.html">https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20131215-gcrypt-bench.html</a></span >
Ideally we'd be able to do that, but it's a decision that should be made by the GnuTLS maintainers.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>