Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Darren J Moffat wrote: >> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> I am sponsoring this case for myself and the Vino project team. >>> I have marked it closed approved automatic - speak up soon if you object! >>> This case requests a patch release binding. >> I don't think this meets automatic approval, I'd prefer to see it run as >> a fast-track. > > Okay, timer set for one week from submission, November 7. > >> This case introduces a second vncviewer client, why do we need this one >> and Vino ? Why should this one and not Vino be /usr/bin/vncviewer ? > > This case supersedes the one in which Vino delivered the simple shell script > wrapper around the Java applet Vino provides for users to download over http > from another computer, so Solaris/OpenSolaris will only have one vncviewer > at a time.
Huh ? That still makes two to me, one which is native code and one which is a jar file. It that is what vino is supposed to be then I think I'm fine with having both they seem to serve different purposes as implementations of the same protocol. >> I also don't think Volatile as the only classification for a vncviewer >> is acceptable - particularly given that it is a core component of how >> xVM is used and tools like virt-install(1M) need to call it. > > I had no idea virt-install called it - there was no objection to Vino's > vncviewer script being Volatile with no documentation of the arguments in > the previous case, and no contracts listed in that case for anyone to > depend on the vncviewer interfaces. That's because I didn't see the previous case! Nor did I know until this week that Vino is currently called in virt-install but so could vncviewer be as well (I think the need for vino modifications go away with this case though). Does this vncviewer support SSL/TLS ? If so which SSL/TLS library does it use. -- Darren J Moffat
