W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-amaya@w3.org > April to June 2006

What's the word on SSL support, and updating the .spec files?

From: Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:06:15 -0400
Message-ID: <003501c65e29$80591670$6401a8c0@raoul>
To: <www-amaya@w3.org>

I've been using Amaya again recently, and have 2 concerns.

1: It still lackes SSL support. This makes editing websites remotely via 
WebDAV problematic: I can work around some it by doing SSH or SSL tunneling, 
but it introduces serious uncertainties in any links created, and it makes 
direct URL's in the websites awkward to navigate or verify. It's really 
important for production use, because anytime you send the edito's logins 
and passwords over the net in the clear you're begging to have the site 
hacked by script kiddies with packet sniffers in place.

2: The .spec files for RPM's are fairly odd, and somewhat broken, especially 
for x86_64 compilation. I've got a self-written patched set for amaya_wx, 
and amaya_gl, but the amaya_gtk one has some strainge behavior where it has 
hard-coded 8.8.4 values in some of the configuration files and insists on 
trying to install some of the tools in /usr/share/amaya-8.8.4 instead of the 
configured amaya-9.4. Is the GTK version considered supported, or should it 
simply be discarded? I'd be happy to send in the patched files if they'd be 
useful.

Perhaps instead of including 3 .spec files, none of which work because they 
have to be updated to match the release number, perhaps we can have *one* 
active .spec file with a "toolkit" option that enables wx by default, or gl 
or gtk as selected at compilation time? 
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 12:08:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:36 UTC