On 2016-08-30 22:07, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > That was not my point. It's unfortunate that Python depends on > a library which is inevitably going to need updates frequently, > and which then may have the implication that Python won't compile on > systems which don't ship with more recent OpenSSL libs - even > if your application doesn't even need ssl at all. That's wrong. ssl support is optional. hashlib builds without OpenSSL, too. > Please reread what I suggested: to postpone the switch to require > OpenSSL 1.0.2 by one Python release version. And in my reply I then > put this into more context, saying that your schedule will likely > work out. OpenSSL 1.0.2 requirement is already postponed to 3.7. > Postponing this should not introduce more work for anyone; if you'd > like to add support for 1.0.2 feature early this can also easily be > done by making such support optional depending on which OpenSSL > lib Python is compiled against. This takes a few #ifdefs, nothing > more. No, the SSL module will require features that are OpenSSL 1.0.2 only. >>> This doesn't sound like a feature worth breaking compatibility >>> to me. >> >> It does. > > Why not make the 1.0.2 and 1.1.0 support optional as we do > in so many other situations for various systems and libs ? Please read my mails. I gave you two reasons. First it's going to make my work harder and I'm not willing to invest extra work to supported deprecated, unsupported and insecure versions. Second I'm going to require features that are 1.0.2 only. Christian
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