I didn't know that SVR4 packaging was using that http code. Yikes. I had done some cleanups of the SVR4 code base in the past, and I can see your point that having the network retrieval handled by a higher level facility feels better. I didn't think anyone actually *used* that network retrieval support in pkgadd?
Package signing could be handled by lower level crypto facilities in libpkcs11, although I suppose we are getting certificate management from OpenSSL as well. Other folks with strong feelings about this feel free to pipe up now. On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Peter Tribble <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Garrett D'Amore via illumos-developer < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok, let's put it this way. We have an intention to remove wanboot from >> illumos. If *anyone* will be impacted by this, or realistically >> anticipates being impacted by it (recognizing that it only affects SPARC, >> and that TFTP network booting will remain possible), please speak up NOW. >> > > Something else: SVR4 packaging uses wanboot code to provide its > http client support. I would be more than happy for that code and the > ability for pkgadd to directly retrieve packages via http to be removed. > (In Tribblix, packages are retrieved using higher-level facilities - the > builtin functionality in pkgadd is rubbish.) > > I would also love to see the package signing in SVR4 packaging (which > is another openssl dependency) be removed as well; I would personally > clean out both the openssl and wanboot dependencies at the same time. > I may even be able to find time to do some of the work. > > (As a maintainer of one of the SVR4-based distros, I feel reasonably > qualified to comment on this area. I do know, however, that Martin is > of the opposite view and regards keeping network retrieval in pkgadd > as important.) > > Although if we carry on at this rate we won't have any consumers > of openssl left. > > >> This may well impact folks with SPARC based distributions. I'm not aware >> of any of those that support wanboot, but this serves as advance warning. >> >> If you care at all about wanboot, SPEAK UP NOW or forever hold your peace. >> >> I'm cross-posting to illumos-discuss just in case someone there has a >> configuration where this is an issue. >> >> Distribution maintainers, an affirmative reply that you've received this, >> and can confirm that you have no impact (or that you do), would be >> appreciated. >> > > On behalf of Tribblix, I can cheerfully state that I would love to > see wanboot get torched. > > -- > -Peter Tribble > http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
