On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 11:36:36PM +0200, Mats Erik Andersson wrote: > Hello, > > it is no mandatory need to link mbuffer against libcrypto/OpenSSL. > The problem is that the upstream source Thomas Maier-Komor > made a mistake in "configure.in", in specifying the reverse > check order for the intended order of preference (he explicitely > writes this order in the documentation) > > libmhash, libmd5, and libcrypto.
Yes, this is one way indeed. I seem to have overlooked it, thanks! > I submitted a remark and patch about this fact to the upstream > source two days ago, and I have produced an almost lintian > clean (modulo NMU etc.) package of mbuffer that links against > libmhash, contrary to the a priori outcome of the tar-ball. > Thus it is now fairly strightforward to produce an GPL-ed > package "mbuffer". It is a question of regeneration with > autotools. ...however, I already created a GPL'd Debian package of mbuffer by simply using GnuTLS instead of OpenSSL :) http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/mbuffer/mbuffer_20090628-1.dsc ...and I sent an RFS to the mentors list two weeks ago: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/08/msg00312.html I've been dealing with a couple of orphaned and RFA'd packages since, so I have not resent the RFS; I just did, though. Still, thanks for your work - it might be simpler to just use mhash instead of GnuTLS in a future version of the package, since mbuffer only needs the MD5 routines, no SSL or anything. G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@space.bg r...@freebsd.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 I had to translate this sentence into English because I could not read the original Sanskrit.
pgp3TOjYa5Eqz.pgp
Description: PGP signature