> On Aug 31, 2014, at 5:43 PM, Christian Heimes <christian at python.org> wrote: > > On 31.08.2014 08:09, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> As Antoine says here, I'm also opposed to adding more Python specific >> configuration options. However, I think there may be something >> worthwhile we can do that's closer to the way browsers work, and has >> the significant benefit of being implementable as a PyPI module first >> (more on that in a separate reply). > > I'm on your and Antoine's side and strictly against any additional > environment variables or command line arguments. That would make the > whole validation process even more complex and harder to understand. > > There might be a better option to give people and companies the option > to tune the SSL module to their needs. Python already have a > customization hook for the site module called sitecustomize. How about > another module named sslcustomize? Such a module could be used to tune > the ssl module to the needs of users, e.g. configure a different default > context, add certificates to a default context etc. > > Companies could install them in a system global directory on their > servers. Users could put them in their own user site directory and even > each virtual env can have one sslcustomize of its own. It's fully > backward compatible, doesn't add any flags and developers have the full > power of Python for configuration and customization. > > This may be a dumb question, but why can’t sitecustomize do this already? --- Donald Stufft PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140831/d829ffd8/attachment-0001.html>
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