Should we settle on one SSL implementation?

[Tomas Mraz]

On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 15:38 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:13:18PM +0000, seth vidal wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 09:11 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > John Dennis wrote:
> > > 
> > > > So why did Peter Vrabec open bugs against a slew of packages a few hours
> > > > ago all with the summary:
> > > > 
> > > > "Port XXX to use NSS library for cryptography"
> > > > 
> > > > I haven't seen a consensus this how package maintainers should be
> > > > spending their time.
> > > 
> > > I'm assuming those bugs are mostly for tracking purposes.
> > > 
> > 
> > and a lot of them are wrong.
> 
> Yep, this is just creating yet bug triage work for maintainers. When entering
> tickets one could at least check the app in question to see if it actually
> uses the crypto libraries we're being told to remove. Not useful.
Not only crypto libraries but built-in code as well. I have checked that
the packages actually contain the code. I hardly could in reasonable
time check whether the code is always used and so on. I'd expect some
help from maintainers in these corner cases.

-- 
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb