[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: TSVN 1.5 + neon enabled MIT

From: Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:35:16 +0200

Ludek Finstrle wrote:
> Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:48:28PM +0200, Stefan Küng napsal(a):
>> Ludek Finstrle wrote:
>>> I update the patch as I mentioned in previous e-mail. I have already
>>> sent the new patch to the neon developer. I don't plan to change the
>>> patch if there is no comments from developers.
> ...
>>> Please, could some TSVN developer say if it's suitable or not?
>> It looks fine to me. But I don't want to have neon patched for a release
>> TSVN build. If neon accepts your patch and a new version of neon with
>> this patch applied gets released, I'll include this in TSVN.
> Hello,
> thank you for reaction at first. I have talked about the patch with
> neon developer Joe and he said he dislike run-time linked gssapi in neon
> becouse it adds more complexity for unix users without additional value.
> He pointed me the way TSVN should use neon dll (instead staticaly linked).
> Then the end users should choose between two neon.dll (one SSPI, another
> GSSAPI enabled). Is it acceptable solution for TSVN?

Sorry, no. I won't create separate dlls if I can link that stuff
statically. Especially something that uses any kind of security
(openssl, sspi authentication, ...). The risk of malware interferring
with dlls is too high, and I also really hate the problems which arise
from using dlls (ever heard of "dll hell"?).

I don't understand the problems Joe mentioned: it would be a compile
time option. So why is he concerned about unix users? They simply won't
compile that stuff in!


   oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
  (_,\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
    \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
    /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.net

Received on 2008-04-19 10:35:33 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the TortoiseSVN Users mailing list.