Discontinue Non-SSL KDE Packages?

Right now, basically the only thing holding me back from putting KDE 3.4.0 in stable is continued packaging issues with conflicts between SSL and non-SSL packages.
The division between SSL and non-SSL is kind of silly anyways -- what does everyone think about me dropping the non-SSL packages altogether? My suspicion is most people who install the non-SSL ones do it only because they didn't think/remember to put "-ssl" on the end of the package...

Share on Facebook

9 comments to Discontinue Non-SSL KDE Packages?

  • Lane

    Fine with me. I’m looking forward to KDE 3.4 binaries! 🙂

  • i say remove em too. i dun see why anyone is going to complain about it when it doesn’t really make a difference as an overall KDE-exeperience 😉

  • I also agree.
    What is the main reason for non-ssl? Export restrictions?

  • I’d be grateful for their removal.
    They’ve always caused problems for me whenever I try to build the *-ssl versions from source, and frankly, I use KDE on OS X because the SSL-enabling of the native apps (esp Finder) is so crappy.

  • Another vote for dropping them.
    Save yourself the time and effort, I say. The only real point against it is a legal one, but does anyone really pay much attention to those ridiculous crypto export things anyway…?

  • Frank

    I take it the binaries in question are QT/X11 and not QT/Mac(?) Any news on when these will appear in fink stable as binary?

  • I say: drop it!
    Why would someone need non-SSL KDE when the underlying OS X has tons of SSL encryption, even FileVault? For such a person the whole Mac would be illegal anyway.

  • eddie

    may the death of the non-SSL packages be quick and painless.