[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is anyone opposed to GnuTLS with DANE by default?
|
From: |
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice |
|
Subject: |
Re: Is anyone opposed to GnuTLS with DANE by default? |
|
Date: |
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:22:54 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 |
ng0,
What a coincidence! I was slogging through some very old mail, had just
read your original gnutls/dane message, and was about to post the very
same question. Then I ran ‘guix size’.
ng0 wrote on 14/11/17 at 19:54:
> If no one is opposed to this change, I will
> prepare a patch tomorrow.
I certainly don't object, but am forced to note that ’gnutls-dane’ more
than doubles the closure size of ‘gnutls’ proper (294.2 MiB vs. 138.5).
The only new input is ‘unbound’, but that manages to pull in both
Pythons 2 and 3. It would be nice™ if it could first be -minimalised...
You know. By someone™.
Kind regards,
T G-R