Marc-Andre Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> added the comment: Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > >>> This sounds a bit ridiculous. Why not add the crypto routines directly >>> to the stdlib? >> >> To make those routines available to a broader audience and to >> get more user feedback. > > Sure. But it can be any standalone package, not necessarily pyOpenSSL. > Then, if we want to add them to the stdlib, we don't have to pull in the > whole pyOpenSSL package.
pyOpenSSL has the advantage of already providing all the other bits and pieces needed to interface and build against OpenSSL, so it's a good ecosystem for such a development. Besides there are already patches available which do add the ciphers and hashs to pyOpenSSL, so the development could be sped up by using those as references. >> I don't think we can add pyOpenSSL to Python 3.2, > > Right, it's too late. > >> so it's better >> to use the available time to hash out the details outside the >> stdlib. Once it's in the stdlib, changing APIs is very difficult. > > Then I think the discussion about API and process should move to > python-ideas. The APIs should probably be discussed on the Python crypto or pyOpenSSL list and the discussion about its integration into the stdlib on either the python-dev or the stdlib list. https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pyopenssl-list http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-crypto http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig python-ideas is not really meant for such discussions. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8998> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
