| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Subject: | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
| Date: | 2006-12-30 14:41:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20061230144157.GM24675@kenobi.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andrew Dunstan (andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net) wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Keep in mind it took years to get OpenSSL support up to the level we
> > have it now. It took SSL experts coming in and out of our development
> > process to get it 100% feature-complete. Doing this for another
> > library, I am afraid, isn't trivial, unlike the above options.
>
> Not only that, but in every other case of an extra library, it provides us
> either with more platform support (e.g. libedit) or more functionality
> (e.g. dtrace). That's not the case here - we would simply be supporting
> another way of getting the same functionality on platforms where we
> already have a library that supports it.
As I mentioned previously there are at least some features GNUTLS has
which OpenSSL doesn't (though I don't pretend to know the level of
importance). There is also the license difference (which there *is* a
pretty clear difference in the license between the two, and some might
prefer one or the other, regardless of if there's actually a problem or
not).
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-12-30 14:49:48 | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-12-30 14:36:03 | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |