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.
> 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