RFC: Adding Mac support to secur32/schannel.c

Henri Verbeet hverbeet at gmail.com
Tue Feb 1 10:49:54 CST 2011

On 1 February 2011 17:19, Juan Lang <juan.lang at gmail.com> wrote:
>> what IMO complicates writing them is that only the client part of
>> schannel is currently implemented.
> That might be true for writing tests against Wine's implementation,
> but there's nothing to stop them from being skipped if a server
> implementation isn't available.  In general, I write tests against
> Windows first.  How is this case different?  Furthermore, adding a
> server implementation to schannel isn't likely to be that complex, as
> GnuTLS does support server-side connections as well, so if that's
> what's holding back tests, it shouldn't be.
I wrote some tests when doing the initial implementation, but those
were standalone, running against a real https server running locally.
I suppose I could check if I still have them somewhere and send them
to you, but they would be fairly useless for preventing regressions as
long as they're not part of the Wine tests, and are actually run.

>> Not really. IMO it's just a case of neglect.
> Agreed that it is neglected.  Without tests, I'm nervous to take on
> ownership of it.  There have been a few half-hearted attempts to work
> in this area, but I haven't seen much contribution from people willing
> to maintain the code over the long term.
Yeah, but that's hardly specific to schannel.

> I may be flogging a dead horse here, but I personally am loath to see
> another implementation creep in, side by side with the existing one,
> that has no guarantee of working any better.  I don't see how this
> helps CodeWeavers, either, other than reducing installation
> complexity.  If there are bugs in the new implementation, and I expect
> there will be, you'll still have a large support load.  Worse, even if
> you succeed in fixing bugs for your Mac customers, the rest of us
> don't benefit, as the current implementation still isn't getting any
> support.  If there are development resources available to work on
> schannel, why not put them into something that benefits the project as
> a whole?
Note that in general I agree with your position, I'm just trying to
clarify some of the reasons of why the current situation is the way it
is. I think it would be a good thing for CodeWeavers to spend some
time on Schannel by adding server support and tests, but it's not my
decision to make. If it was something I'd have to do on my own time,
I'm simply not going to have the time any time soon though.

More information about the wine-devel mailing list