Graham Leggett wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
-1; please revert.
all httpd and apr components build for ssl explicitly, on demand.
They don't automatically inflict crypto API's on the user. See
archives esp httpd's for why this policy exists.
The spec file is targeted at Redhat-like systems, and standard practice
on Redhat-like systems is to build against all the system libraries
typically available (but not necessarily installed on) Redhat-like systems.
It makes no sense to distribute a library that contains support for SSL,
and yet that support comes switched off as standard.
The RPM spec file is not intended as a generic build spec that applies
for other systems, like Solaris, Windows or Netware (etc).
It makes complete sense. Most distros ship mod_ssl as a separate package
from httpd, and for good reasons. It makes it trivial to provide the
crux of what httpd does, without ssl/tls cryptography.
Perhaps two rpm specs, apr-util and apr-util-ssl to distinguish
the feature?
This breaks the "principle of least astonishment" behaviour of RPM spec
files.
Irrelevant. Astonishment that another/a different package is required
is far less risky than Astonishment that package dependencies have brought
you software in violation of local law, or that you as a packager have
broken export laws.
If we refactor to provide openssl support when libssl.so/libcrypto.so
when they are found is less harmful. But in the meantime, as requested,
please revert.
Bill
