Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-gnome (68 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-gnome] Re: [obs submit-request 37739] GNOME:Apps/pidgin: declined by MBoman
  • From: Sandy Armstrong <sanfordarmstrong@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 14:57:06 -0700
  • Message-id: <h2uf89c49a91005031457n65e4847we1a6d75e47aa3c88@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Magnus Boman <captain.magnus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 13:49 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Magnus Boman <captain.magnus@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 08:39 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Monday 03 May 2010 15:02:53 mboman@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
State of submit-request #37739 was changed by MBoman:

  new -> declined

Comment:
  Untested and not approved

Magnus, I tested it myself successfully. ;)  What do you mean with not
approved?

Since empathy will be (correct?) the default for 11.3, I'd like to
discuss the
topic with the complete team. What does this mean for moving forward?

As band-aid, we could add something to the release notes to point out
to users
the problems with empathy on Groupwise.

Is there an openSUSE bug filed for this?  I have some comments I'd
like to attach regarding various related upstream plans (the first
step of which is not too different from Andreas' patch).

Don't know if there is. We discussed this on IRC and I created the patch
after looking at the code. Feel free to send it upstream and see what
they say. What we really would like to have is an "endorsement" that the
preference key will not be used for anything else in the future, or that
they tell us the name of the key they'd prefer.

The GConf key isn't the way they want to do it; that's the only
difference.  Here's something I wrote up for an internal bug a couple
of weeks ago:

I don't implement a gconf key in my patch [1].

Ah, sorry, the prefs call made it look like a gconf key.

<quote>
I've just talked with upstream telepathy and pidgin folks.

In the short term, they intend to modify the libpurple API to allow consumers
(like telepathy-haze) to specify that they are willing to accept bad/unknown
certificates.  Then an ignore-ssl-errors parameter would be added to haze
(just
like gabble has).

So if we use ignore-ssl-errors instead of verify_certificates, we should
be safe?

Well, if you look at the git branch I linked earlier you'd see that
it's done by adding API to libpurple. Then telepathy-haze would would
be the one to have an ignore-ssl-errors switch, which would determine
whether or not it told libpurple to ignore the errors.

I don't know what you'd have to do to be "safe" with the preferences
approach, sorry.

Sandy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >