Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> 
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> Sure. But it can be any standalone package, not necessarily pyOpenSSL.
> Then, if we want to add them to the stdlib, we don't have to pull in the
> whole pyOpenSSL package.

pyOpenSSL has the advantage of already providing all the other
bits and pieces needed to interface and build against OpenSSL,
so it's a good ecosystem for such a development.

Besides there are already patches available which do add the
ciphers and hashs to pyOpenSSL, so the development could be
sped up by using those as references.

>> I don't think we can add pyOpenSSL to Python 3.2,
> 
> Right, it's too late.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Then I think the discussion about API and process should move to
> python-ideas.

The APIs should probably be discussed on the Python crypto or
pyOpenSSL list and the discussion about its integration into the
stdlib on either the python-dev or the stdlib list.

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pyopenssl-list
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-crypto
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig

python-ideas is not really meant for such discussions.