| 1 |
lör 2010-08-14 klockan 13:45 +0200 skrev Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn: |
| 2 |
> Peter Hjalmarsson schrieb: |
| 3 |
> > This is about my beloved USE="ssl". A bit long and ranty, but if you |
| 4 |
> > want the consensus, just read the last part. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Today a new snapshot of gnash was uploaded where the old USE="ssl" was |
| 8 |
> > renamed to USE="openssl". |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > So yet another package where if you want ssl support you have to |
| 11 |
> > _personally_ audit what function this useflag has (i.e. does it enable |
| 12 |
> > ssl or tune the ssl implementation?). |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > So I wanted to figure it out, does gnash provide ssl itself and the |
| 15 |
> > USE="openssl" only tunes how it is implemented or does USE="openssl" |
| 16 |
> > enable ssl? |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The USE flag was renamed after discussion with upstream. Gnash does not |
| 20 |
> provide any SSL implementation itself and (when invoked as NPAPI plugin) |
| 21 |
> uses the browser's facilities. Possibly I could make more explicit that |
| 22 |
> users only interested in the plugin don't need it. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Best regards, |
| 26 |
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Well if that is the use of the use flag the description is to be honest |
| 32 |
really bad. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
And still, why openssl instead of ssl? Even if most people are out to |
| 35 |
only get the plugin the meaning of use flag for the rest of the package |
| 36 |
is still the same. So is there a special reson why upstream do want ssl |
| 37 |
disabled for people only out to get the plugin (and why not EAPI=1 and |
| 38 |
IUSE="-ssl")? |
Archives