This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: On Porting OpenSSL v1.0.0c
- From: Sergei Gavrikov <sergei dot gavrikov at gmail dot com>
- To: John Dallaway <john at dallaway dot org dot uk>
- Cc: "Retallack, Mark" <mark dot retallack at siemens dot com>, 'Michael Bergandi' <mbergandi at gmail dot com>, eCos Discussion <ecos-discuss at ecos dot sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:32:23 +0200 (EET)
- Subject: [ECOS] Re: On Porting OpenSSL v1.0.0c
- References: <AANLkTi=3hSnicTZ77Ci3Nfw9BEMYYv3Cg4Ub_kpA12QD@mail.gmail.com> <C4E8D0478C3D194FA02B65678CBB6C6087A78E6E66@DEFTHW99EC5MSX.ww902.siemens.net> <4D073A3D.9040706@dallaway.org.uk>
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, John Dallaway wrote:
> ... It would be interesting to compare the sizes of PolarSSL and
> OpenSSL when configured with the same feature set.
Hi John,
I built and tried PolarSSL on eCos Linux synthetic target, but, that was
external build with its default settings. I know size of got stuff. But,
it seems I need to get CDLized PolarSSL (CYGPKG_POLARSSL eCos package)
for such a comparison (and at first, the Andrew's port of OpenSSL would
be used). However, in my opinion, that's not very important (I'm about
sizes). The main your Q was Can future eCos releases have 'net/*ssl'
packages out the box at all? And I'm still having doubts... If we can
have only the 3rd party crypto packages, that's good to have different
alternatives. And 2-3 alternatives is not too much :-)
Well, as I said 'A', I will work on CYGPKG_POLARSSL. Certainly, that will
be movements only in porting and testing. I am not expert in the field of
cryptography.
Sergei
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss