Re: py-M2Crypto vs SSL round 2 (was: Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: ports)
On 2014/05/15 23:44, viq wrote: On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Stuart Henderson st...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote: CVSROOT:/cvs Module name:ports Changes by: st...@cvs.openbsd.org 2014/05/11 15:14:38 Modified files: security/py-M2Crypto: Makefile Log message: add a sanity check to ensure that the built M2Crypto python module actually works; this currently fails due to ssl ASN1 API changes which nobody who has looked at it has been able to work out yet - better to have a visible failure at build time than not know about it until you try to run code using it.. ok rpe@ Currently this test fails, but if it is removed from the makefile from a quick test salt works with the resulting package. So what's the way from here? -- viq Aha - Miod brought back the various ASN1_* functions that this needs, but the test I picked as a simple not too intensive check actually needs more than I thought. I'll change it to a different test, the intention is just to catch a totally broken library rather than to do complex tests at that stage.
Re: py-M2Crypto vs SSL round 2 (was: Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: ports)
On 15 May 2014 23:58:41 CEST, Stuart Henderson st...@openbsd.org wrote: On 2014/05/15 23:44, viq wrote: On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Stuart Henderson st...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote: CVSROOT:/cvs Module name:ports Changes by: st...@cvs.openbsd.org 2014/05/11 15:14:38 Modified files: security/py-M2Crypto: Makefile Log message: add a sanity check to ensure that the built M2Crypto python module actually works; this currently fails due to ssl ASN1 API changes which nobody who has looked at it has been able to work out yet - better to have a visible failure at build time than not know about it until you try to run code using it.. ok rpe@ Currently this test fails, but if it is removed from the makefile from a quick test salt works with the resulting package. So what's the way from here? -- viq Aha - Miod brought back the various ASN1_* functions that this needs, but the test I picked as a simple not too intensive check actually needs more than I thought. I'll change it to a different test, the intention is just to catch a totally broken library rather than to do complex tests at that stage. Awesome, thanks. -- viq
