Bug#207400: Notes
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 09:29, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:40:23PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > SSL stuff from Progeny/etc: I was more or less happy with the last patch I
> > saw, my biggest concern was the shear amount of extra goo that had to be
> > directly copied from some ssl sample program to make it work. I don't
> > recall if the work was done to make a seperate binary package for the SSL
> > stuff or if that even makes sense anymore.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the other 3 items in Progreny's patch are?
Support for HTTP redirect, interactive authentication, and cookies. The
former two have implications for libapt-pkg.
> Jeff Licquia at Progeny has been kind enough to split up the patches and
> file them in the BTS, so this should all be clear very soon.
Well, not yet. :-) I thought I'd update our patch against apt 0.5.9
before splitting, to save some of the inevitable work.
> It does not
> currently build a separate binary package, and introduces a libssl
> dependency in the binary package. This would seem to be nontrivial to fix
> because both methods are in the same binary. I think this happened in order
> to support redirects from http to https and that sort of thing.
Correct.
> Presumably,
> this could be changed to use dlopen.
It certainly could, if it's important to keep the libssl dep separate
from apt proper.
Matt brought up licensing before. If this is the main reason to
separate the https method out, then I would rather just port the SSL
portion of the patch to GNU TLS, which I can do in a jiffy. If there
are other good reasons, though, I'm not opposed to dlopen().
> > SWIG: I never liked the idea of the SWIG markup in the code. Since Gustavo
> > has said that the SWIG authors will not accept the patch I'd drop it. It
> > also sounds like the python-apt painfully hand crafted bindings are
> > nicer..
>
> I agree, though I wish I had time to keep the bindings up to date.
I have no experience with the SWIG bindings, but I have had lots of
recent experience with the hand-crafted ones, and I think they need some
enhancement (and certainly documentation). We do lots of Python here at
Progeny, so this could become an issue fairly quickly. If/when that
time comes, I'll ping you, and you can dump your Python tasklist on me
if you like.
Reply to: