On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:20:51PM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jorge Arellano Cid<jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Hi,
?Working on
? ?2.- To enable-ssl or not enable-ssl (define what to do).
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:36:39AM +0200, Michal Nowak wrote:
[...] Generally speaking for Fedora, we won't turn on options which are not turned on by default in upstream - it usually brings divergence from upstream and comments in upstream mailing lists (not this one :) ) like: "That poor distroX turned on --enable-coolness so we are not supporting users of this distro at all."
Turning on SSL in upstream means more pressure for fixing it, usually :). But I am reading dillo-dev long enough to know it's not that easy.
[snip]
?Obviously the safe option is not to offer ssl-enabled packages, but that will mainly have the effect of no https-dpi at all.
?I'm not quite sure which one would be best. ?Comments?
Good!
Looks like Kelson's having some problems with building, so I patched-rebuilt-installed Kelson's static FLTK2 SRPM and rebuilt Dillo2. Now there are present i586 pkgs for F-11, both SSL on/off,
BTW, is there a special instruction to install them on RPM systems? I mean something like adding a line to /etc/apt/sources.list in Debian.
tomorrow I can build x86-64 pkgs for F-11 at work. And i386 packs for F-10 (hopefully there's still the F-10 beast in KVM).
WARNING: Please don't make the packages yet, I've got a last minute security vulnerability email, so maybe the tarball will change once more (the last). I'll try to have this solved tomorrow in the morning.
(But treat them as third party ones, don't trust them :). )
What do you mean? -- Cheers Jorge.-