Jim Gifford wrote these words on 06/04/05 01:20 CST: > BLFS has stunnel listed as optional, but the way you have things > configured, you made it dependent. If it was truly optional, you would > have a non-stunnel swat configuration also.
My previous reply was not complete. You are correct, Jim, that there should probably be a non-Stunnel configuration to run SWAT. Could you please provide a patch to the XML, seeing how you brought it up? I added the Stunnel stuff because it was BZ'd that not encrypting access to SWAT was a major security breach. I never thought about the fact that we advise to use Stunnel, but it is an optional dependency. Again, like the rsync instructions, I'll have to defer to Bruce's judgment. It is not required to build, yet we provide instructions to use it during the configuration. To me, it is as you say, now a required dependency, however, as you correctly point out, it isn't. Bruce? -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 01:37:00 up 63 days, 1:10, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
