Re: Replacing apt's http method (dropping curl)
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 12:40:16 +0800
- From: YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Replacing apt's http method (dropping curl)
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Julian Andres Klode <jak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> as we discussed before in IRC, we plan to eventually replace
> our existing curl-based https method with our http method,
> by adding TLS support to it. This will move HTTPS support
> into apt proper, removing the apt-transport-https package.
> I'm not sure how long this will take, I hope we get something
> useful next month.
> * The https method is split out of apt because curl has a lot
> of dependencies (29 vs 7 on my test setup, 15.9 vs 4 MB of
> disk space)
> * We want https to be a default these days, even if it provides
> only minor security improvements.
> * Our http method is actually tested a lot because it is the
> default and supports advanced features, the https method just
> does curl easy stuff sequentially.
> Transition plan
> I plan to do this in two stages, both of which I expect to
> happen in unstable if all features have been implemented
> quickly. There might be feature-incomplete alphas in
> In the first stage, the "https" method is renamed to
> "https+curl", and a https->http symlink is added in apt.
I'd guess you have to help process the bootstrap process.
The TLS stuff is a quilt big trouble when bootstrap Debian for new
So, I prefer the current schema, aka split https stuff to itself's
> If no significant regressions are reported (we might drop
> some options or increase some checks), and the package has
> been in testing for some time, the apt-transport-https
> package is removed.
> This ensures that (a) we get proper testing and (b) users
> have a workaround if something fails in that testing period.
> I so far implemented basic https support using GnuTLS, including
> SNI and certificate validation, and one (!) local CA file (as our
> tests need that). The code is incredibly hacky right now. And
> https->http redirects don't work yet.
> Alternatives would be to use libnss or openssl. In the latter
> case, we'd have to build a separate helper binary that does not
> link to the GPLed code, and just unwraps a TLS connection into
> a pipe (similar to stunnel) - we could also use a helper generally,
> it would allow us to run the TLS stack as nobody (!!!) [OK,
> we have to open the socket in the parent process and pass it
> down to the TLS stack, so _apt opens the connection for firewalls].
> The existing shitty proof of concept is available on GitHub:
> But as I said it's ugly. It also does not yet link the http
> binary to the https binary.
> Debian Developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
> | Ubuntu Core Developer |
> When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
> directly below the part(s) it pertains to ('inline'). Thank you.