build time options
hartmans at MIT.EDU
Fri Jan 30 16:14:58 EST 2009
>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> writes:
Nicolas> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 03:03:59PM -0500, Sam Hartman
>> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Yu <tlyu at MIT.EDU> writes:
Tom> * Implement the "allow_weak_crypto" libdefault setting. I
Tom> was leaning in favor of "false" but recent discussion of the
Tom> transition issues is calling that into question. Unless I
Tom> hear strong objections, I will assert that defaulting to
Tom> "false" is acceptable for the alpha release and am willing to
Tom> reconsider prior to final release.
>> I strongly object to this unless you meet Ken's documentation
Nicolas> I also object unless the default is a build-time option.
Nicolas> We would like to eventually get to where we do code drops
Nicolas> from MIT, but we might need to make changes that can be
Nicolas> seen as incompatible at potentially different times than
I agree that MIT's recent tendency to introduce vendor-specific code
with a bunch of build-time defines would be compatible with this.
I'd like to start a discussion of that practice. I understand the
desire to minimize patches. However I think it would be a good idea
to get some guidelines for when we accept build-time options and for
when we tell people to go maintain a patch.
More information about the krbdev