On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Martin v. Löwis <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Martin v. Löwis <martin@v.loewis.de> added the comment:
>
>> Evpy and M2Crypto have very different goals. M2Crypto seeks to be a
>> complete wrapper for OpenSSL, which we don't, and also uses SWIG,
>> which disqualifies it from consideration for the stdlib.
>>
>> I don't know what the pycrypto folks would say about evpy, but I admit
>> to being very wary of that project- it appears to have been constructed
>> in a way which lends itself well to academic exercise rather than
>> practical use by nonexperts, and have had multiple occasions to correct
>> its dire misuse.
>
> That isn't really my question; it's the other way 'round: what do *they*
> (i.e. the respective authors) say about evpy? In the absence of actual
> user input, support for inclusion of it by these experts would be a
> valuable indication that this specific library should be included.
> Likewise, objective resistance may lead to significant changes before
> inclusion, or to rejection. In the absence of both user support and
> expert opinions, I'd ask for a PEP.

I have no idea, and as I said earlier in the mailing list, I'm
willing to contribute the code, make changes as requested,
and maintain it- but I have no interest in or skill with the
political footwork the process demands. I like to think that
if this is as widely desired as it is asked for on python-list
that a champion will sooner or later emerge.

Geremy Condra