[pypy-dev] question re: ancient SSL requirement of pypy

Leonardo Santagada santagada at gmail.com
Fri Feb 17 18:33:45 CET 2012


On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Armin Rigo <arigo at tunes.org> wrote:
> Hi Leonardo,
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 15:55, Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>> why not statically link everything and mark the pre built binaries a
>> "security risk" or whatever and then they will just work.
>
> Anyone can either install PyPy from his own distribution, or translate
> it from sources; or attempt to get one of our nightly binary packages,
> which may or may not work because it's Linux.  I think that this is
> what you get on Linux, and we will not try to find obscure workarounds
> (like making all our nightly binary packages twice as big just for
> this use case).

it would also make testing old nightly builds much easier, as they
will just work on any machine with any openssl. Another option would
be to do a semi-source distro, shipping the resulting c files and the
makefile so people would still need to compile the sources but it
would link to the openssl lib they have available or does the c files
too specific to work?

Is static linking really obscure? Just use xz instead of gz to
compress the binaries and you will probably get most of the space
back. It is far easier to find a xz binary then to find a machine with
+/- 2 hours and 4gb of ram to build a pypy from source.

-- 

Leonardo Santagada


More information about the pypy-dev mailing list