On Nov 8, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>> Also, for Python 2.5 and earlier, any SSL-based code is vulnerable >>> to a MitM >>> anyway, so this can only be an issue for code using the new APIs >>> in Python >>> 2.6. >> >> That's not going to stop the >> wannabe-self-proclaimed-so-called-vulnerability-"experts" from >> whining >> about Python not releasing updated binary distributions though. :-( > > The Windows binaries currently build with 0.9.8g. Since changing that > would be a source code change (even though just a single line), I > think > a full source release would be necessary (most likely then for both > 2.6 > and 3.1). I don't think it's worth making a quick 2.6.5 release for this if it's primary intent is to produce new Windows binaries. I'm okay with making the changes to the tree, but we'll release 2.6.5 on a "normal" schedule. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20091109/38db296d/attachment.pgp>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4