Re: TODO: GNU TLS

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS
Date: 2006-12-28 19:17:09
Message-ID: 22999.1167333429@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Currently, Tom Lane does not like how invasive the patch is.

If GNUTLS really wants to take market share from OpenSSL, why don't they
provide a more nearly compatible API? I don't see why we should have
to jump through so many hoops in order to satify someone else's license
fetish. (And it is a fetish, because only a compulsively narrow-minded
reading of the licenses yields the conclusion that there's a problem.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2006-12-28 19:26:27 Re: pg_standby
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-12-28 19:14:52 Re: pg_standby and build farm