Certificate Management stuff

[Ivan R. Judson]

In that case, should the commits to pyopenssl be considered not important
yet? Or are they things we need to worry about for the next release? I'm
hoping to have matt's mods to pyGlobus include the openssl/pyopenssl api
extensions we've been using to date and to not have to package and
distribute the following (based on previous conversations):

Pydns
Openssl
Pyopenssl
Putty (for windows)

And get down to distributing only:

Pyglobus
GT
Logging (only if necessary)

Plus obviously our software.

Are we on track for that? It significantly simplifies our release
engineering work, and pares things down so we're not branching other peopls
work and accepting responsibility for more software than we need to.

--Ivan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Olson [mailto:olson at mcs.anl.gov] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:13 AM
> To: judson at mcs.anl.gov
> Cc: ag-dev at mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: Certificate Management stuff
> 
> At 10:25 AM 1/28/2004, Ivan R. Judson wrote:
> 
> >Hey Bob,
> >
> >It just sunk in what you said Monday about "reworking how some of 
> >certificate management works". If it's anything more than bug fixes, 
> >you should write up and AGEP for it and we can review it 
> when we review 
> >Tom's venue client refactoring AGEP which we should do 
> pretty darn soon 
> >if we want to get the work in this cycle.
> 
> 
> Yup. The ideas are still rolling around in my head, not 
> formed enough to talk about yet.
> 
> --bob
> 
>