On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Sebastian Nowicki <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 02/06/2008, at 6:58 PM, Xavier wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Antonio Huete Jimeenz
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> For the checksum verification it might be ok to use openssl since
>>> it's in
>>> base for almost all BSD system. But what about linux? You'll have
>>> to install
>>> it before using makepkg, and this means a dependency.
>>> In the case of CHOST usage, I haven't explained it fine. It's not
>>> related to
>>> this checksum issue. I'll try to explain it better in another
>> openssl is in the base group of archlinux, so it is supposed to be
>> installed on every system.
>> But when you look at the number and the importance of the packages
>> requiring it, it is fully justified :
>> I can even hardly imagine a linux distro without it. Or am I mistaken?
> It is an issue, but openssl is only 7mb, which should be an issue on
> almost all systems, and on embedded systems where disk space may be
> scarce, Archlinux probably wouldn't run anyway (afaik there's a
> project for that purpose). As Xavier mentioned it's in core, so with a
> typical install (installing everything in base), it should be
> installed on the system.
1. openssl as we've no found out does not have a loss in
functionality, it can do all of the algorithms we need.
2. It doesn't even need to be installed on every system, just every
system used *to build packages*. However, I would highly doubt you can
find a system in the wild that doesn't have openssl installed.
Since we have no loss in portability or functionality with openssl, I
say lets go for it. Be sure to adjust the comments at the top of
makepkg where it lists programs needed to run so we can keep that up
pacman-dev mailing list