[lsb-discuss] nss question: did we close on the nspr issue?

Ron Hale-Evans rwhe at ludism.org
Sat Sep 6 15:55:19 PDT 2008


On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Wan-Teh Chang <wtc at google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe at ludism.org> wrote:
>> This email is intended to start finalizing NSPR support in LSB.
>>
>> With bug 2286 (Add libnspr to LSB), ISPRAS wrote some SQL to include
>> the libnspr interfaces to the database, including the following 35
>> interfaces. We were expecting about 20. A fair number of these are
>> marked as optional in Wan-Teh's email (below this list). Which of
>> these interfaces are really necessary for inclusion of NSPR in LSB,
>> and which interfaces can we legitimately exclude?
>> [snip]
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> I will look at this list more closely this weekend and send you an
> improved list next week.
>
> Let me explain why I marked some NSPR functions as optional.
> They are optional in that you can use the SSL functions in NSS
> without these NSPR functions.  A good example is
> PR_NewUDPSocket.  Since SSL runs over TCP, there is
> no need to create UDP sockets for SSL.
>
> On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with including
> PR_NewUDPSocket in the LSB.  If there is cost involved
> with each included function, for example in documentation
> and testing, then I can try to generate an absolutely
> minimal list required for NSS SSL functions.

Thank you, Wan-Teh. Yes, I'd appreciate it if you would create an
absolutely minimal list for us. There is always a cost in supporting
interfaces, whether in documentation, testing, or in the additional
burden on ISVs and distributions. However, we can add more NSPR
functions later, by request or because we discover new dependencies,
and if the LSB 4.0 deadline weren't looming for us, we might have
decided to be more inclusive this time.

Thanks,

Ron Hale-Evans


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list