[Pythonmac-SIG] Package Manager idea, adding a URL scheme
bob at redivi.com
Fri Oct 10 12:25:17 EDT 2003
On Friday, Oct 10, 2003, at 09:53 America/New_York, Glenn Andreas wrote:
> At 11:45 PM -0400 10/9/03, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2003, at 20:34, John W. Baxter wrote:
>>> On 10/9/2003 13:24, "Ronald Oussoren" <oussoren at cistron.nl> wrote:
>>>> On 9 okt 2003, at 21:43, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>>> I think we could get away with including M2Crypto or PyOpenSSL
>>>>> (Mac)Python 2.4 since OS X comes with OpenSSL. Actually, since OS
>>>>> is probably only salable in countries where OpenSSL is allowed, I
>>>>> don't see how distributing any cryptography libraries with the OS X
>>>>> version would be a legal problem.
>>>> We could also use the commandline openssl interface
>>>> to avoid including crypto code with Python.
>>> This message reminded me...are we assuming installation of the "BSD
>>> subsystem" when the user installed Mac OS X? Sub question: is
>>> OpenSSL in
>>> the basic installation or in that optional part that should [almost]
>>> be omitted?
>> I think if anyone omits the BSD layer they're just asking for serious
>> trouble. I don't care about these people, personally. In any case,
>> I'm relatively sure that CoreFoundation uses OpenSSL so I think that
>> it's safe.
> I'm not so sure (at least not directly via a link to OpenSSL) - I just
> looked at Safari, which uses the SecurityFramework.
> SecurityFramework doesn't (dynamically) link with OpenSSL.
> However, it does contain routines like "DSA_do_sign" and
> "DSA_do_verify", so it appears that the library is statically linked
> into the SecurityFramework. However, the headers don't appear to
> mention these routines.
> SecurityFramework isn't part of the "optional BSD" layer, so if we
> link (dynamically) to it, everything should work.
That's pretty ridiculous. Sounds good though, SecurityFramework it is!
More information about the Pythonmac-SIG