Hi Yang, > > I'm not opposed to not including the version number - this would be > > consistent to what WinIDN displays, [...] > > Ok, then we have consensus then.
On the version number yes, on the SChannel literal no as this should be SSPI - you wouldn't list either libssl32 or libeay32 for OpenSSL !! > > I also think, as per the discussion I started 6 weeks ago which I > > thought we had decided to do, hence my work here, was that the package > > name "WinSSPI", "Windows SSPI" or "SSPI-Windows-native" should be > > displayed for the other features that SSPI offers not just the > > SChannel SSL support - again this is synonymous to the other Security > > Providers that curl uses and provides consistency. > > I asked for a patch april 23. > http://curl.haxx.se/mail/lib-2012-04/0259.html As Marc has already mentioned the commit history of the original work has been available for a long time now. My rework has been available since the 22nd April. The work you reverted on the 23 April was made because of some points over SSPI vs SSO #defines and not the version number rework itself - these issues were then addressed on the forums between the 13 May and the 16 May - no additional input was provided by you during that conversation. > Given that it seems we've reached consensus on > that you can live without the numeric part of the > string, and that I can live with some schannel > specific identifier, I'm pushing right now a patch > with the following commit message: > > schannel: remove version number and identify > its use with 'schannel' literal This is the exact opposite of what I have been saying - Windows SSPI is a provider of security features like GNUTLS is and should be recognised as such. Like you also said we don't list the individual features in the package / version string so why list SChannel on its own? > Identifier changed from 'WinSSPI' to 'schannel' > given that this is the actual provider of the > SSL/TLS support. libcurl can still be built with > SSPI and without SCHANNEL support. I will have a look at the change you are putting in but from reading your reply here, you seem to have completely ignored everything I have said on this matter and any contribution I have made. I have provided good argument for including Windows SSPI as the package name and for the inclusion in the version string for both SChannel based SSL and for without. I have had agreement from others here and to that degree I can only conclude that you simple do what you want when you don't agree with what has been said. In that respect I can only thank you for wasting my time on this - 2 days of development and several hours of emails. Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------- List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html