Re: [Gimp-developer] New GIMP configure warning/error

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Jehan Pagès <jehan marmottard gmail com>


On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Partha Bagchi <partha1b gmail com> wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine <
alexandre prokoudine gmail com> wrote:

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Partha Bagchi wrote:

I am perplexed to see that we need glib-networking suddenly since my
pull from a couple of days ago? Is there a reason to requiring glib
networking support?

To quote from

"Use a code test inspired by libsoup configure test. This is a hard
dependency because HTTPS should not be considered an option anymore.
Nowadays most websites will use HTTPS by default, HTTP gives SEO
penalties and browsers are starting to display various security
warnings on HTTP websites. Also the experience will be significantly
degraded without SSL/TLS support since the help browser will fail to
load the manual remotely, and opening various remote files on secure
protocols will fail. Note: the test cannot be performed while
cross-compiling. In this case, we will just display a warning for
packagers to be at least well aware of this dependency."


Yes, I read the quote but am still perplexed. the only (?) place we need
http/https support is to load images from an URI? Is it not sufficient to
make that optional instead of introducing one more dependency?

No, there are at least 2 features affected: open remote files indeed
and the help browser (help will fail showing with an error since our
websites are now https only). This last one was getting quite a lot of
report on the tracker and was very bad experience.
Anyway nowadays https is the standard for web access. Not supporting
this is not acceptable IMO.



You realize that for platforms other than Linux, that if you wish to
install glib-networking, you have to install gnutls which requires that you
install nettle which in turn requires that you install gmp? All this
because you want remote help files and remote images be accessed from GIMP?
Does this seem reasonable to you?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]