[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
> that including zlib is the only path to whatever it is that it achieves? If
> security holes in zlib turn up (they have in the past), new Python releases
> will have to be released quickly.
As Ti
Hear, hear. Er
On 1/3/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Guido]
> > OK. As long a typical Unix build still links with whatever shared zlib
> > is present on the box I'm fine with this.
>
> [Guido]
> >>> Hear, hear.
>
> [Skip]
> ...
>
> [Tim]
> ...
> I figure that if we keep this con
[Guido]
> OK. As long a typical Unix build still links with whatever shared zlib
> is present on the box I'm fine with this.
[Guido]
>>> Hear, hear.
[Skip]
Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
that including zlib is the only path to whatever it is th
OK. As long a typical Unix build still links with whatever shared zlib
is present on the box I'm fine with this.
--Guido
On 1/3/06, Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Guido]
> > Hear, hear.
>
> [Skip]
> >> Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
> >> that in
[Guido]
> Hear, hear.
[Skip]
>> Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
>> that including zlib is the only path to whatever it is that it achieves? If
>> security holes in zlib turn up (they have in the past), new Python releases
>> will have to be released quickl
Hear, hear.
On 1/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin checked in zlib to the Python svn repository. Are we really sure
> that including zlib is the only path to whatever it is that it achieves? If
> security holes in zlib turn up (they have in the past), new Python relea
