Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 09:20:30PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >> I looked into how Debian does it. They bundle a configuration file that >> sets the correct options. >> >> If you download the "debian" file [0], which includes all of their >> packaging for w3m, you can view the file at 'debian/w3mconfig'. >> >> The relevant option is "ssl_verify_server", and it must be set to "1" in >> order for w3m to perform verification. >> >> Example with a domain whose certificate is expired: >> $ w3m -o ssl_verify_server 1 fmrl.me >> >> Do we ever bundle configuration files in this manner? >> >> Can a wrapper set command-line variables? >> >> I will investigate whether these options can be set at build time. >> >> I don't think we should ship a browser in this state, even if users are >> able to configure it properly after installation. w3m is used by other >> programs like mutt to render html "under the hood". >> >> [0] >> http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/w3m/w3m_0.5.3-26.debian.tar.xz >> > > This particular issue was resolved in October 2014 in this commit > (tested): > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/w3m.git/commit/?id=05503271dfd26b843589dece0da35ba5d7d38654
Looks like applying this patch would fix the bug right away, right? > It looks like there is a lot of development activity happening within > Debian, beyond simple packaging [0]. Even what seems to be the official > SourceForge page seems to be tracking the Debian work [1]. > > The Debian developers are regularly issuing release tags but not release > tarballs. I built from the latest one and it seems to work. > > I think we should use the Debian repo as the source for our w3m package. > What does everyone else think? Unless upstream is really dead, we should track it. I think it’s not the distro’s job to do non-trivial development. What about using the latest upstream tarball, along with the patch above and probably the one that disables SSLv{2,3}? Thanks, Ludo’.