* Joshua D. Drake ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I am not the one you need to convince :). I honestly don't care that > much. I am just trying to help clean up the TODO list. If you want the > GNU TLS patch accepted, you should probably start a thread about that > problem specifically.
Given the thread subject I figured that was in scope... :)
> Currently, Tom Lane does not like how invasive the patch is. So someone
> is going to have to convince him this is a good idea or some of the
> other committers.
Yeah, I saw that, but I think Martijn answers that quite well:
> More than half the patch is simply moving the OpenSSL related stuff
> from fe/be-secure.c to fe/be-secure-openssl.c. If you create the
> -openssl versions first you can more easily see that the changes are in
> fact quite minor. Unfortunatly diff can't represent the change "copy N
> lines from file A to file B" very efficiently.
And following on to that wrt code maintenance:
> Hmm, I see your point. I guess that's an unavoidable side-effect of the
> process :(. However, judging from the CVS logs, these have not been files
> with a high change rate. I think it's worth it but I can imagine other
> people see that differently.
As for Brunce's comment here:
> Of course, we are trading a BSD license with advertizing clause with an
> LGPL license. I guess it makes sense.
I don't see that we're *trading* anything here if we support both, we're
providing users with the choice of which they'd prefer. I'd agree with
Martijn from above- the benefit is worth the (hopefully low) maintenance
cost.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
