Re: useNoSSLForPackages and other badly-conceived options (notice non-hijacked thread!)

[Adrian Likins <alikins redhat com>]

On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 04:39:52PM +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
> As the subject says, i think 'useNoSSLForPackages' is rather badly
> conceived.  Whenever i see an option that has the word "No" or "Don't"
> in it, alarm bells ring in my head.
>
	heh, yeah. I think it was supposed to be "useNoSSLServerURLForPackages".
But then, I've never been one for picking good names for things. 
	 
> This is a recipe for confusion.  Can we get future versions of the
> option renamed to "useSSLForPackages"?  (I would make it off by default,
> too, since many packages are rather large and some of us still pay a lot
> for bandwidth.)
> 
	Possibly. 

	As mentioned, it was origianally added to up2date to allow
people to setup squid caches (with a suitable tweaked squid config to
cache big "objects"...)


Adrian