Re: xmlsec patches

On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 15:53 +0200, Miklos Vajna wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:50:07PM +, Caolán McNamara dhat.com> wrote: > > So, do we know enough that the customkeymanage part isn't necessary > > for > > any known normal use of xml signing, I mean if we disable

Re: xmlsec patches

Hi, On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:50:07PM +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > So, do we know enough that the customkeymanage part isn't necessary for > any known normal use of xml signing, I mean if we disable it, or build > against a system version that doesn't have it, that the

Re: xmlsec patches

Caolán McNamara wrote: > So, do we know enough that the customkeymanage part isn't necessary for > any known normal use of xml signing, I mean if we disable it, or build > against a system version that doesn't have it, that the uses we do know > about continue to work. > I have vague

Re: xmlsec patches

Hi, On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:50:07PM +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > So, do we know enough that the customkeymanage part isn't necessary for > any known normal use of xml signing, I mean if we disable it, or build > against a system version that doesn't have it, that the

Re: xmlsec patches

On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 10:45 +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote: > external/libxmlsec/xmlsec1-customkeymanage.patch.1: this is a > monster, I think this has to do something with smart-card handling, > but I never got around to actually understand what it does. This is > the real blocker wrt. building

xmlsec patches

Hi, On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 09:14:31AM +, Caolán McNamara wrote: > the one that bothers me the most is libxmlsec because we never got the > modifications upstream or found another way to do whatever it is we do > to it. I started to care about this when I added a few