[pkg-discuss] Re: removal of M2Crypto
- From: Erik Trauschke <
- To: Brian Cameron <
- Subject: [pkg-discuss] Re: removal of M2Crypto
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 19:38:10 -0700
>On 06/27/13 05:46 PM, Erik Trauschke wrote:
>> I'm going to spend some time on getting these patches into either the
>> upstream code base or into just into userland.
>> Like I mentioned, some of the features we are looking for have
>> been added with custom patches by community members, however, these
>> lying around dormant for quite a while now.
>I am delighted to hear that M2Crypto is going away. This is a big step
>forward towards migrating to Python 3!
>> I'm unsure how we should approach this. I can contact the maintainer
>> offer to do any work required to get them integrated. However, if
>> doesn't help, how are we going ahead?
>Let's first contact the upstream maintainers before we start to
>speculate about whether or not they will be helpful.
>> Are we rewriting the already
>> existing patches from scratch and put them into the userland gate
>> too much additional work) or can we just use the available patches
>> put them in our gate? Do we have to contact the original author for
>As long as the patches were not made available with an incompatible
>license, then I wouldn't think it should be necessary to contact the
>original author. I would explain any concerns you have in your legal
>approval request and work with legal if they find it necessary.
>That said, if rewriting the patches is really not much work, it might
>well be easier to just rewrite them and avoid needing to work through
>the legal approval.
Upon a closer look at these patches it turns out they are either implemented
wrongly or slightly different from what we need.
I already have everything we need added to my private userland gate and am
now fixing the pkg gate to use it. We will have to update to pyopenssl 0.13
in the process, but that shouldn't be an issue.