Re: Combining APPLE_COMMON_CRYPTO=1 and NO_OPENSSL=1 produces unexpected result

> I think the best long-term solution would be to abandon the
> CommonCrypto backend, if possible.  There's not a strong reason
> for its existence.  It always seemed kinda hacky, and bolted-on.
> ...
>> A few questions we should be asking Apple users are:
>> 
>>  - Is there a strong-enough reason why those who do not want to use
>>    SSL should be able to choose the SHA-1 implementation available
>>    from CommonCrypto over block-sha1?
>
> IMO, no.
>
>>  - Is CommonCrypto SHA-1 a better implementation than block-sha1?
>
> I do not believe this to be true.
>
> My gut feeling is that we cannot rely on the long-term stability
> and availability of Apple's APIs.  Block-sha1 works fine on
> the current Apple hardware and I suspect that it (or openssl)
> will continue to work fine in the future.
> ...
>> If people do not care, we can leave things as they are.  It would
>> seem mysterious to use block-sha1 when we are not using CommonCrypto
>> for SSL (i.e. NO_OPENSSL), and otherwise CommonCrypto SHA-1, and
>> would invite a puzzlement we saw in this thread, though.
>
> I'm curious to see what others think about dropping CommonCrypto.
> It seems like a good choice from a maintenance POV.