[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
> that including zlib is the only path to whatever it is that it achieves? If
> security holes in zlib turn up (they have in the past), new Python releases
> will have to be released quickly.
As Ti
Hear, hear. Er
On 1/3/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Guido]
> > OK. As long a typical Unix build still links with whatever shared zlib
> > is present on the box I'm fine with this.
>
> [Guido]
> >>> Hear, hear.
>
> [Skip]
> ...
>
> [Tim]
> ...
> I figure that if we keep this con
[Guido]
> OK. As long a typical Unix build still links with whatever shared zlib
> is present on the box I'm fine with this.
[Guido]
>>> Hear, hear.
[Skip]
Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
that including zlib is the only path to whatever it is th
OK. As long a typical Unix build still links with whatever shared zlib
is present on the box I'm fine with this.
--Guido
On 1/3/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Guido]
> > Hear, hear.
>
> [Skip]
> >> Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
> >> that in
[Guido]
> Hear, hear.
[Skip]
>> Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
>> that including zlib is the only path to whatever it is that it achieves? If
>> security holes in zlib turn up (they have in the past), new Python releases
>> will have to be released quickl
Hear, hear.
On 1/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
> that including zlib is the only path to whatever it is that it achieves? If
> security holes in zlib turn up (they have in the past), new Python relea
Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
that including zlib is the only path to whatever it is that it achieves? If
security holes in zlib turn up (they have in the past), new Python releases
will have to be released quickly.
Skip
___
