<br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/11/29 Arjen de Korte<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Citeren Arnaud Quette<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
dnl ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
-dnl Check for --with-ssl<br>
+dnl Check for with-ssl, and --with-nss or --with-openssl<br>
+dnl Only one can be enabled at a time, with a preference for Mozilla NSS<br>
+dnl if both are available<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Having looked at the differences between Mozilla NSS and OpenSSL a little, I doubt the above is a good idea. Migration from OpenSSL to Mozilla NSS is in all likelihood not going to be transparent to end-users and will require changes in the configuration. While I agree that allowing people an option to choose for Mozilla NSS is good, it would be a grievous mistake to break existing installations (using OpenSSL) because we like the licensing conditions of Mozilla NSS better. So I propose to prefer OpenSSL over Mozilla NSS when both are present and '--with-ssl' is used.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>it's true that I've been subverted by this topic.<br>I've changed the default to be OpenSSL, which is in phase with the current behavior.<br><br>Fixed in r2712... thanks for bringing me back to earth ;-)<br>
<br>cheers,<br>Arnaud<br clear="all">-- <br>Linux / Unix Expert R&D - Eaton - <a href="http://powerquality.eaton.com" target="_blank">http://powerquality.eaton.com</a><br>Network UPS Tools (NUT) Project Leader - <a href="http://www.networkupstools.org/" target="_blank">http://www.networkupstools.org/</a><br>
Debian Developer - <a href="http://www.debian.org" target="_blank">http://www.debian.org</a><br>Free Software Developer - <a href="http://arnaud.quette.free.fr/" target="_blank">http://arnaud.quette.free.fr/</a><br><br>