Hi Yang,

> > I'm not opposed to not including the version number - this would be
> > consistent to what WinIDN displays, [...]
>
> Ok, then we have consensus then.

On the version number yes, on the SChannel literal no as this should be SSPI
- you wouldn't list either libssl32 or libeay32 for OpenSSL !!

> > I also think, as per the discussion I started 6 weeks ago which I
> > thought we had decided to do, hence my work here, was that the package
> > name "WinSSPI", "Windows SSPI" or "SSPI-Windows-native" should be
> > displayed for the other features that SSPI offers not just the
> > SChannel SSL support - again this is synonymous to the other Security
> > Providers that curl uses and provides consistency.
>
> I asked for a patch april 23.
> http://curl.haxx.se/mail/lib-2012-04/0259.html

As Marc has already mentioned the commit history of the original work has
been available for a long time now. My rework has been available since the
22nd April. The work you reverted on the 23 April was made because of some
points over SSPI vs SSO #defines and not the version number rework itself -
these issues were then addressed on the forums between the 13 May and the 16
May - no additional input was provided by you during that conversation.

> Given that it seems we've reached consensus on
> that you can live without the numeric part of the
> string, and that I can live with some schannel
> specific identifier, I'm pushing right now a patch
> with the following commit message:
>
> schannel: remove version number and identify
> its use with 'schannel' literal

This is the exact opposite of what I have been saying - Windows SSPI is a
provider of security features like GNUTLS is and should be recognised as
such. Like you also said we don't list the individual features in the
package / version string so why list SChannel on its own?

> Identifier changed from 'WinSSPI' to 'schannel'
> given that this is the actual provider of the
> SSL/TLS support. libcurl can still be built with
> SSPI and without SCHANNEL support.

I will have a look at the change you are putting in but from reading your
reply here, you seem to have completely ignored everything I have said on
this matter and any contribution I have made.

I have provided good argument for including Windows SSPI as the package name
and for the inclusion in the version string for both SChannel based SSL and
for without. I have had agreement from others here and to that degree I can
only conclude that you simple do what you want when you don't agree with
what has been said. In that respect I can only thank you for wasting my time
on this - 2 days of development and several hours of emails.

Steve

-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2012-06-13