Il giorno lunedì 27 agosto 2012 08:34:45 UTC+2, Keshav Kini ha scritto:
>
> fero > writes:
> > IMHO gnutls should be removed from SAGE if it is just used for
> > notebook secure=True to provide https connection,
> > because this argument could be relegated to the deployment
> > enivronment wh
fero writes:
> IMHO gnutls should be removed from SAGE if it is just used for
> notebook secure=True to provide https connection,
> because this argument could be relegated to the deployment
> enivronment which should be in care of sysadmins that deploy
> SAGE notebook somewhere.
See trac #13392
Dear all,
please forgive me if I say something "stupid", but I am still a SAGE newbie.
I have read this thread also because I experimented weird problems with the
libgnutls installed in sage
as you can read in
http://ask.sagemath.org/question/1674/psycopg2-importerror-libgnutls-on-debian-wheez
Keshav Kini writes:
> I made this #13385 - http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13385
There's now also a pull request on github for removing the pyOpenSSL
dependency from sagenb: https://github.com/sagemath/sagenb/pull/95
Anyone want to review it real quick? +22/-6 diff.
-Keshav
Join
Keshav Kini writes:
> If this is still your view, it seems to me that we can probably even get
> rid of the OpenSSL headers dependency which has been causing users so
> much trouble since 5.2 was released. We can just stop packaging
> pyOpenSSL with the sagenb SPKG, and instead require users who w
On Monday, August 20, 2012 8:35:45 PM UTC-7, Keshav Kini wrote:
>
> William Stein > writes:
> > Hi Sage-Devel,
> >
> > PROPOSAL: I propose that we remove python_gnutls, gnutls, opencdk,
> > libgcrypt, and
> > libgpg_error from Sage-5.0. See below for details.
>
> Half a year later, it se
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:35:45 Keshav Kini wrote:
> William Stein writes:
> > Hi Sage-Devel,
> >
> > PROPOSAL: I propose that we remove python_gnutls, gnutls, opencdk,
> > libgcrypt, and
> > libgpg_error from Sage-5.0. See below for details.
>
> Half a year later, it seems nothing came of this,
William Stein writes:
> Hi Sage-Devel,
>
> PROPOSAL: I propose that we remove python_gnutls, gnutls, opencdk,
> libgcrypt, and
> libgpg_error from Sage-5.0. See below for details.
Half a year later, it seems nothing came of this, since we still have
all the SPKGs you mentioned being shipped wi
On Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:07:21 PM UTC-8, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> I don't see any reference to "system library"
>
Fine, replace it with library "of the operating system on which the
executable runs".
and I certainly would have thought
> "totally insignificant" and "major" to have diff
On 01/17/12 04:50 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
On Monday, January 16, 2012 8:35:56 PM UTC-5, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Personally I don't see how OpenSSL can be considered a major part of the
operating system.
You misread the license. For GPL purposes, a "system library" can be
totally insignifican
On Monday, January 16, 2012 8:35:56 PM UTC-5, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> Personally I don't see how OpenSSL can be considered a major part of the
> operating system.
>
You misread the license. For GPL purposes, a "system library" can be
totally insignificant as long as it is shipped with the ma
On 14 January 2012 19:10, William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Dr David Kirkby
> wrote:
> > What part of the GPL? Can you be more specific.
> >
> > I know there is this clause
> >
> > "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> > include anything
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:07:08 AM UTC-8, William wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2012 9:00 AM, "Dr David Kirkby" wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 9, 4:39 pm, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> > > Very few people actually use the notebook
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Dr David Kirkby wrote:
> What part of the GPL? Can you be more specific.
>
> I know there is this clause
>
> "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
> binary form)
On 2012-01-14 18:22, Dr David Kirkby wrote:
> Yes, and are you sure port fowarding is permitted by the more
> "entreprise" level operating systems. I am not on a Unix box just now,
> but I suspect that might fall into the same category as X forwarding.
> It probably depends on how sshd_config is se
On Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:07:08 AM UTC-8, William wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2012 9:00 AM, "Dr David Kirkby" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 9, 4:39 pm, William Stein wrote:
>
> > Very few people actually use the notebook in secure=True mode. For
> > > those that do, I think it is reasonable
On Jan 14, 5:07 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2012 9:00 AM, "Dr David Kirkby" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 4:39 pm, William Stein wrote:
> > > Hi Sage-Devel,
>
> > > PROPOSAL: I propose that we remove python_gnutls, gnutls, opencdk,
> > > libgcrypt, and
> > > libgpg_erro
On Jan 14, 2012 9:00 AM, "Dr David Kirkby" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 9, 4:39 pm, William Stein wrote:
> > Hi Sage-Devel,
> >
> > PROPOSAL: I propose that we remove python_gnutls, gnutls, opencdk,
> > libgcrypt, and
> > libgpg_error from Sage-5.0. See below for details.
> >
> > VOTE:
> >
> > [ ] Ye
On Jan 9, 4:39 pm, William Stein wrote:
> Hi Sage-Devel,
>
> PROPOSAL: I propose that we remove python_gnutls, gnutls, opencdk,
> libgcrypt, and
> libgpg_error from Sage-5.0. See below for details.
>
> VOTE:
>
> [ ] Yes, remove them!
> [ ] No, we need them.
> [ ] Woops -- you are confused and
On Jan 12, 2012 7:43 AM, "Jason Grout" wrote:
>
> On 1/12/12 3:20 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> It pains me a bit to say yes, but I agree with your assessment of the
>> situation; it's needed only by the few (and the technically capable)
>> and is a lot of weight for something that looks to alw
On 1/12/12 3:20 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
It pains me a bit to say yes, but I agree with your assessment of the
situation; it's needed only by the few (and the technically capable)
and is a lot of weight for something that looks to always be an
incomplete hack around not having OpenSSL on the sy
On Jan 9, 8:45 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 1/9/12 8:36 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> > As a very naive question, how would this change the way campuses set
> > up their Sage notebook servers? If anything changes there in terms
> > of security, it would need to be really well documented on the setup
On 1/9/12 8:36 PM, kcrisman wrote:
As a very naive question, how would this change the way campuses set
up their Sage notebook servers? If anything changes there in terms
of security, it would need to be really well documented on the setup
pages.
Changes would be:
1. install openssl developm
As a very naive question, how would this change the way campuses set
up their Sage notebook servers? If anything changes there in terms
of security, it would need to be really well documented on the setup
pages.
- kcrisman
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 01:56:15PM -0800, mmarco wrote:
> I don't think the case of users who would use the secure=True option
> but are not that sophisticated is as unusual as William assumes. I
> know several examples (and i am one of them). I would agree with the
> elimination of this option IF
My vote:
[X] Yes, remove them!
Somewhat coincidentally, Jason and I were looking at this today. The
express summary is that Jason and I have put together a patch today that
solves the FlaskNB+HTTPS problem (caused by an attempt to use TLS with the
latest Twisted 2), and to do so it rips out G
I don't think the case of users who would use the secure=True option
but are not that sophisticated is as unusual as William assumes. I
know several examples (and i am one of them). I would agree with the
elimination of this option IF the way to recompile it with openssl
support is adequately docum
On 01/09/12 15:00, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> Via the absolutely zero-configuration one-time certificate opening of
> the notebook, I agree. However, on a machine with multi-account login
> (nearly any unix/linux/mac workstation in a department network), even
> listening on localhost provides a larger
On Jan 9, 8:39 am, William Stein wrote:
> When I originally pushed to have secure=True easily available by
> default in Sage for all users, I
> (1) didn't understand that secure=False is safe on localhost,
Via the absolutely zero-configuration one-time certificate opening of
the notebook, I agree
On Tuesday, 10 January 2012 00:39:30 UTC+8, William wrote:
>
> Hi Sage-Devel,
>
> PROPOSAL: I propose that we remove python_gnutls, gnutls, opencdk,
> libgcrypt, and
> libgpg_error from Sage-5.0. See below for details.
>
> VOTE:
>
> [X ] Yes, remove them!
> [ ] No, we need them.
> [ ] Woops --
30 matches
Mail list logo
