1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [pycrypto] Need your input: Major modernization; dropping legacy Python support?
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:pycrypto%40lists.dlitz.net?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bpycrypto%5D%20Need%20your%20input%3A%20Major%20modernization%3B%0A%20dropping%20legacy%20Python%20support%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C20140222205050.GC7112%40ramacher.at%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<style type="text/css">
pre {
white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */
}
</style>
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="000771.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="000773.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[pycrypto] Need your input: Major modernization; dropping legacy Python support?</H1>
<B>Sebastian Ramacher</B>
<A HREF="mailto:pycrypto%40lists.dlitz.net?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bpycrypto%5D%20Need%20your%20input%3A%20Major%20modernization%3B%0A%20dropping%20legacy%20Python%20support%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C20140222205050.GC7112%40ramacher.at%3E"
TITLE="[pycrypto] Need your input: Major modernization; dropping legacy Python support?">sebastian+lists at ramacher.at
</A><BR>
<I>Sat Feb 22 12:50:50 PST 2014</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000771.html">[pycrypto] Need your input: Major modernization; dropping legacy Python support?
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="000773.html">[pycrypto] Public Key (X.509) in Modulus/Exponent Format
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#782">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#782">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#782">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#782">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>On 2014-02-06 09:51:39, Dwayne Litzenberger wrote:
><i> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 06:24:48PM +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
</I>><i> >>2. I'm thinking of pulling in additional dependencies (e.g. cffi),
</I>><i> >>requiring setuptools, and basically joining what the rest of the
</I>><i> >>Python community is doing in 2013.
</I>><i> >>
</I>><i> >>3. What if src/*.c were removed, and any relevant C code moved into
</I>><i> >>an independent library, which could be loaded using cffi? (This
</I>><i> >>is basically what we need to do to support PyPy properly.)
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >I wouldn't mind if the C code is moved into a library, however cffi
</I>><i> >doesn't seem to be ready to be used in binary distributions without
</I>><i> >resorting to hacks ([1] for the upstream bug, [2] for a very short
</I>><i> >thread on debian-python). I'm told that this will be fixed in cffi at
</I>><i> >some point.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >I've always had a good experience with Cython. What do you thinkg about
</I>><i> >that?
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >Anyway, as long as we are not starting to use ctypes, I'll be fine.
</I>><i> >Depending on the timeframe of this change, I'd prefer PyCrypto to use
</I>><i> >someting that does not require hacks in binary distributions. If cffi is
</I>><i> >fixed until the change happens, I won't complain.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >[1] <A HREF="https://bitbucket.org/cffi/cffi/issue/109/enable-sane-packaging-for-cffi">https://bitbucket.org/cffi/cffi/issue/109/enable-sane-packaging-for-cffi</A>
</I>><i> >[2] <A HREF="https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2013/10/msg00070.html">https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2013/10/msg00070.html</A>
</I>><i>
</I>><i> ctypes is definitely not on the list.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> From what I understand, CFFI will only try to build binaries if
</I>><i> they're not already found. I think as long as packages that use
</I>><i> CFFI include the appropriate rules in their `setup.py build_ext`
</I>><i> process, it shouldn't be a problem. (I'd certainly work with you to
</I>><i> make sure the packaging isn't a nightmare.)
</I>
cffi 0.8 has been released in the meantime. I hope the issues have been
fixed, but I haven't had the time to check out the new version.
><i> >>4. What if Crypto.* became a wrapper around some other crypto library?
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >This depends on the crypto library you're thinking of. If it's openssl,
</I>><i> >then all the GPL licensed reverse dependencies might have a problem (at
</I>><i> >least in Debian).
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >>5. The Apache License 2.0. What if PyCrypto were licensed under it,
</I>><i> >>or included dependencies that are licensed under it?
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >With my Debian maintainer hat on, this would be a problem for me. We
</I>><i> >still ship software that is GPL 2 only that depends on PyCrypto.
</I>><i> >However, GPL 2 and the Apache License 2.0 are incompatible.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >Examples of these packages include revelation and pymsnt (I stopped
</I>><i> >searching for GPL 2 only reverse dependencies after I've found two).
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> >Of course, if the license changes or python-crypto starts depending on
</I>><i> >something licensed under Apache 2.0 this needs to be checked on a case by
</I>><i> >case basis, but I'd rather avoid it if there is no really good reason to
</I>><i> >do so.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Ugh, GPL 2 only. I wish people would at least do "or any later
</I>><i> version".
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I'm thinking of merging with the folks at <A HREF="https://cryptography.io/,">https://cryptography.io/,</A>
</I>><i> which is covered by an Apache 2.0 license.
</I>
What is the merge going to look like?
><i> How bad is the situation with GPL2-only packages?
</I>
I'll check the reverse dependencies in a couple of days.
Regards
--
Sebastian Ramacher
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <<A HREF="http://lists.dlitz.net/pipermail/pycrypto/attachments/20140222/0da79cc2/attachment.sig">http://lists.dlitz.net/pipermail/pycrypto/attachments/20140222/0da79cc2/attachment.sig</A>>
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000771.html">[pycrypto] Need your input: Major modernization; dropping legacy Python support?
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="000773.html">[pycrypto] Public Key (X.509) in Modulus/Exponent Format
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#782">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#782">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#782">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#782">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="http://lists.dlitz.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pycrypto">More information about the pycrypto
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
