[Pythonmac-SIG] Package Manager idea, adding a URL scheme

[Bob Ippolito]

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 
>>>>> with
>>>>> (Mac)Python 2.4 since OS X comes with OpenSSL.  Actually, since OS 
>>>>> X
>>>>> 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 
>>>> (/usr/bin/openssl)
>>>> 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] 
>>> never
>>> 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!

-bob