Le mercredi 25 octobre 2017 18:10:50 UTC+2, vdelecroix a écrit :
You are suggesting to reread a very long thread... not very useful to > get new people involved. A summary is available <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/fE45025Wphs/mKdCAeNhAgAJ>, the final tally being here <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/fE45025Wphs/rZ0xwAyJCAAJ>. As far as I understand there are distinct things: > > A) distributing Sage sources (which has few to do with SSL) > B) building Sage with or without SSL support > C) distributing Sage binaries with or without SSL > > All are different things. Which one are you talking about when saying > "inclusion of OpennSSL"? Before talking about implementation it would > help to have clear goals. > All of them. With qualifications : - Sage sources : a consensus seems to form on Sage-the-distribution being too large. A review of what needs to be inclided, what can be corrected in the interfaces and what can be used “raw” is in order. Discussion to open ? - Building Sage without SSL support : that’s the object of the present proposal. It should be an *option*, not the default, as it is now. We shouldn’t have to maintain such “anti-OpenSSL patchjes” vrom upgrade to upgrade. And we shouldn’t have to patch software that *wants* SSL support, such as R, or obtain crippled software such as pip. - Distributing binaries : a consensus seem to exist (even from Jeroen !) that binaries should support SSL. — Emmanuel Charpentier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
