On 9/13/05, Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Olaf van der Spek]
I thought that if the interface matches the user can link whatever
he wants, because he doesn't (re)distribute the results.
[Steve Langasek]
There isn't universal agreement on this point, and it's never
On Sep 13, Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There isn't? I thought this has been standard GPL lore for a very long
time - if you link to an *interface* which has a GPL-compliant
implementation, it does not matter if you also are incidentally runtime-
compatible with a
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell
Steve BSG wrote:
I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have
the job of deciding whether the packages implement the same ABI
or not.
On Sep 13, Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, BTW, gnutls isn't a complete 100% solution either, IIRC packages
exist that require openssl because the license is GPL incompatible.
No, it has been LGPL'ed since a long time.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:50:00PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
Steve == Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell
Steve BSG wrote:
I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have
the job of deciding
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Paul TBBle Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mind you, the license/OpenSSLCallback conflict neccessarily
segregates the packages into two camps, those which are GPL, and
those which need the callback only supplied by the
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have the job
of deciding whether the packages implement the same ABI or not.
DECIDE.
If the answer is yes, then they should both be drop-in replacements,
and Provide
On 9/12/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have the job
of deciding whether the packages implement the same ABI or not.
DECIDE.
If the answer is yes,
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Paul TBBle Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mind you, the license/OpenSSLCallback conflict neccessarily
segregates the packages into two camps, those which are GPL, and
those which need the callback only supplied by the
Folks, *please* consider to help with the implementation of the real
solution for libcurl4, i.e. several SSL backends to just one libcurl.so
front-end, without installation conflicts, modular and compatible with
all licenses. See the second half of
http://curl.haxx.se/legal/distro-dilemma.html.
I
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:34:22AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
will libcurl3 with versioned symbols break existing packages linked
to it?
It will not.
It would be best to coordinate with upstream to get symbol versioning
added there as well, so that binaries built against the
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 03:03:02AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:34:22AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
will libcurl3 with versioned symbols break existing packages linked
to it?
It will not.
good
It would be best to coordinate with upstream to get symbol
Scripsit Domenico Andreoli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
yesterday i was rolling a new upload with a modified name for
libcurl3-gnutls to allow both the packages to be installed at the same
time when i finally understood why i probably need versioned symbols.
However unacceptable the current situation
On Sep 12, Richard Atterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks, *please* consider to help with the implementation of the real
solution for libcurl4, i.e. several SSL backends to just one libcurl.so
front-end, without installation conflicts, modular and compatible with
all licenses. See the second
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:09:31AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 9/12/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have the job
of deciding whether the
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:05:23PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 12, Richard Atterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks, *please* consider to help with the implementation of the real
solution for libcurl4, i.e. several SSL backends to just one libcurl.so
front-end, without installation
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have the job
of deciding whether the packages implement the same ABI or not.
DECIDE.
If the answer is yes, then they should
Richard Atterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Folks, *please* consider to help with the implementation of the real
solution for libcurl4, i.e. several SSL backends to just one libcurl.so
front-end, without installation conflicts, modular and compatible with
all licenses. See the second half of
On Sep 12, Richard Atterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not believe that it's worth the effort, there are no really good
reasons to use OpenSSL in the long time.
Development effort should be focused on fixing any eventual gnutls bugs
(either in the library itself or in the libcurl glue).
[Olaf van der Spek]
I thought that if the interface matches the user can link whatever
he wants, because he doesn't (re)distribute the results.
[Steve Langasek]
There isn't universal agreement on this point, and it's never
actually been tested in court.
There isn't? I thought this has
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:21:51PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There should be TWO libcurls, with DIFFERENT names, and then
applications can simply link against whichever one they want, instead
of the current approach, which totally breaks,
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared
libraries, where there are easy solutions: MAKE TWO LIBRARIES THAT
HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES.
The package has to build libraries with differently versioned symbols as
well, to avoid
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:54:17AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared
libraries, where there are easy solutions: MAKE TWO LIBRARIES THAT
HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES.
The
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:54:17AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared
libraries, where there are easy solutions: MAKE
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared
libraries, where there are easy solutions: MAKE TWO LIBRARIES THAT
HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES.
The package has to build
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 08:59:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared
libraries, where there are easy solutions: MAKE TWO
Paul TBBle Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mind you, the license/OpenSSLCallback conflict neccessarily
segregates the packages into two camps, those which are GPL, and
those which need the callback only supplied by the OpenSSL-linked
libcurl.
You misunderstand my complaint.
I do not care
reopen 318590
severity 318590 serious
thanks
So my package, libofx, builds a binary that wants to use curl. My
package is GPL'd. Getting a libssl exemption is not the right thing,
nor should it be necessary.
I would like to build the package against libcurl3-gnutls-dev which
will be just
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There should be TWO libcurls, with DIFFERENT names, and then
applications can simply link against whichever one they want, instead
of the current approach, which totally breaks, violates policy, and
doesn't really help much of anyone.
I really
29 matches
Mail list logo
