Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> 
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment:
> 
>> I've been in touch with the copyright holders of pyOpenSSL and they
>> all were positive about contributing the code to the PSF under a
>> contributor agreement.
>> So how should we go about this ? Open a new ticket ?
> 
> I would like to see public discussion about this, especially in the
> light of the ssl module improvements in Python 3.2. It is not obvious
> that duplicate APIs in the stdlib are a good idea, especially when they
> are not compatible with each other. It also means that the current
> pyOpenSSL maintainer (Jean-Paul) should agree to do maintenance directly
> in the stdlib rather than in a separate repo.
> 
>> The idea would then be to add the crypto routines to pyOpenSSL and
>> have that added to the stdlib as say openssl package.
> 
> This sounds a bit ridiculous. Why not add the crypto routines directly
> to the stdlib?

To make those routines available to a broader audience and to
get more user feedback.

I don't think we can add pyOpenSSL to Python 3.2, so it's better
to use the available time to hash out the details outside the
stdlib. Once it's in the stdlib, changing APIs is very difficult.