On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:23:33PM -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote: > I'm biased since the RPMs are built --with-nss :) In general I'm all > for simplifying config options and removing this. > > - Ken > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Right now you can build against either libnss or cryptopp for crypto > > support. We always build packages with nss, mainly because it has some > > certifications that governments and distros care about. I don't think > > anybody builds with cryptopp any more, but I may be wrong. > > > > Would anyone object if we just ripped out support for cryptopp? > > > > sage > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Are we supporting a "without-nss" build at all? I'm not so sure I like the idea of putting all our eggs in the nss basket. There's also gnutls/gcrypt, which debian/ubuntu seem to like. -Marcus Watts -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
