Is there interst in ssl these days?
vorlon at netexpress.net
Thu Nov 8 09:16:26 GMT 2001
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 01:11:01AM +0900, TAKAHASHI Motonobu wrote:
> David Collier-Brown wrote:
> > is there a chance that the --with-ssl option will
> > be retired?
> I agree, I think --with-ssl option can be retired.
> Rafal Szczesniak wrote:
> >I think it should stay there, especially because of code change to
> >support OpenSSL. If you don't ./configure it, the code doesn't even
> >get compiled. At the moment it looks only like the matter of source
> >tarball's size.
> To support unused parameters waste time, if ssl options are still
> left, we can evidently state that these options are obsoleted if we
> will not maintain these codes no longer.
However, if the parameter works, and people are using it with success,
it doesn't make sense to drop it unless it's fundamentally broken. When
bug reports start coming in that no one wants to deal with, then it
would make sense to drop the option...
For better or for worse, I have heard requests from Debian users who
want SSL functionality. I personally don't see much value in it, since
I believe there are better Unix-to-Unix network filesystems with
built-in crypto, but to each his own.
More information about the samba-technical