Re: GNU Emacs-libnettle-libhogweed integration patch v1

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 07:41:39 -0400 Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> wrote: 

TZ> On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:02:37 -0400 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote: 
>>> the Nettle patch is accepted, so it would have been nice to state your
>>> opposal earlier.  I certainly stated my intentions clearly.

SM> I stated it many times already in earlier discussions.

TZ> I didn't realize you would actually reject a working, optionally enabled
TZ> piece of functionality.  Sorry for misunderstanding today's Emacs
TZ> development model, and I hope you change your mind at some point.
TZ> Consider my patch withdrawn.

Huh.  So I was looking at updating GnuTLS to version 3.x for a
completely unrelated reason (updating Emacs support for it) and found
that it exposes most of the Nettle functions in a convenient form:
basically a thin layer on top with different function names.  This is
new in 3.x and had slipped my notice:

http://gnutls.org/manual/html_node/Cryptographic-API.html#Cryptographic-API

If I changed my proposal to use the GnuTLS interface functions, so no
new library dependencies are added, would it be acceptable?

Ted