| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Subject: | Re: TODO: GNU TLS |
| Date: | 2007-01-02 18:29:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20070102182935.GD24675@kenobi.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* David Boreham (david_list(at)boreham(dot)org) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> >Not sure what license that's under,
> >
> From http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/:
> 'NSS is available under the Mozilla Public License, the GNU General
> Public License, and the GNU Lesser General Public License.'
Works for me then, and it's already packaged in Debian. The only
downside that I can see is that the work isn't done yet and if we want
to support both OpenSSL and NSS then the patch will be at least somewhat
invasive/large (since I doubt NSS's API is anything like OpenSSL's,
please correct me if I'm wrong).
Would a patch to implement dual-support for OpenSSL and NSS be
acceptable? Would just replacing OpenSSL support with NSS support be
better?
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2007-01-02 18:36:29 | Re: Rare corruption of pg_class index |
| Previous Message | D. Hageman | 2007-01-02 18:23:59 | 8.2 Crash on Query |