"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I didn't consider the case that we had NO_OPENSSL=1 because it seems a > bit bizarre to say, "No, I don't want OpenSSL—oh, wait, I do want > OpenSSL!" Indeed ;-). > This patch also didn't seem necessary for me on Linux when I tested, but > of course it might be necessary on some systems, so if it fixes things, > I'm in favour. I think I've seen the breakage myself when I tried to force CSPRNG_METHOD = openssl in my build. Let's take the patch as-is for now.
