On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 09:21 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Am Samstag, 22.03.03 um 02:46 Uhr schrieb Ben Hines:
I don't like this. With that reasoning you could just as well say: let's abolish the whole crypto/ tree, Apple ships the system with openssl anyway. So if we want to follow that route, we should do it for real. But that sounds like a half-baked, "I am too lazy to do it right" kind of solution.
On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 10:50 AM, Max Horn wrote:
I guess that would amount to having python, python-ssl, python-nox and python-nox-sll. Furthermore, there are the 21, 22 and 23 versions of it, for a total of 12 packages (not counting splitoffs). Ouch.
Maybe a system-python is needed after all, as an alternate solution for this issue?
How about considering a special case exclusion for python? (and consider it for other crypto packages that also come with the OS) - python with ssl enabled (yes?) comes with OS X, so going through hoops to separate it in fink seems silly. Also, our python could probably be made to link against the system openssl.
Well, let's abolish the whole crypto/ tree, then! It's silly.
It doesn't sound like 'i'm too lazy to do it right' to me, it sounds like 'I don't need to do tons of extra work for dubious benefit'. Is there any true benefit to making separate SSL packages and non-SSL packages for apps that come with OS X? I see none. Why the hell would anyone ever want, or need, a non ssl python, when the ssl python comes with OS X/Darwin? If you can't answer that, we shouldn't expend tons of effort (and its a lot) accomodating it.
-Ben
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and the chance of winning an Apple iPod:
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
