Re: How to handle libssl support?

2004-11-13 Thread Gustavo Noronha Silva 
Em Qui, 2004-11-11 s 13:17 -0500, Daniel Burrows escreveu:
 On Thursday 11 November 2004 10:45 am, Mike Hommey wrote:
  It is not necessary. Look at fetchmail, for instance:
  Replaces: popclient, fetchmail-ssl, fetchmail-common
  Provides: popclient, fetchmail-ssl, fetchmail-common
  Conflicts: popclient, fetchmail-ssl, fetchmail-common, logcheck (
  1.1.1-9)
 
  I don't know and didn't check for the others *-ssl packages, though.
 
   Yes, but if you have fetchmail-ssl installed and not fetchmail, an upgrade 
 will not install fetchmail.  It might result in fetchmail-ssl being removed 
 (since the new fetchmail-common doesn't provide the version it needs), but 
 unless some other part of the system depends on fetchmail, you won't end up 
 with fetchmail installed.

I'm not sure about this. Wouldn't the Provides: fetchmail-ssl on
fetchmail satisfy fetchmail-common's relationship needs when upgrading
and, thus, be selected for instalation?

Thanks,

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha http://people.debian.org/~kov
Debian:  http://www.debian.org  *  http://www.debian-br.org

How to handle libssl support?

2004-11-11 Thread Juergen Salk 
Hi all,

what's the current policy for packaging software that can optionally 
linked with libssl support? 

For Woody it seemed to be common practice to provide two separate 
packages, one with ssl support enabled and another one with ssl 
support disabled (like fetchmail/fetchmail-ssl or lynx/lynx-ssl).
It seems in Sarge at least some of the crypto crippled versions 
have just vanished into thin air. For example there is no fetchmail 
package without ssl any more. The only fetchmail package in Sarge 
has libssl support enabled without indication in the package name.

Has the crypto policy changed after the Woody release? And more important:
What would be the best practice for new packages that can optionally linked 
with libssl support?

Best regards - Juergen

-- 
GPG A997BA7A | 87FC DA31 5F00 C885 0DC3  E28F BD0D 4B33 A997 BA7A


pgp2uaANkI6tL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: How to handle libssl support?

2004-11-11 Thread Marco d'Itri 
On Nov 11, Juergen Salk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 what's the current policy for packaging software that can optionally 
 linked with libssl support? 
You just do it.

 Has the crypto policy changed after the Woody release? And more important:
Yes. Welcome to 2002.

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [9130 nuETc/wXQ0GZY]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: How to handle libssl support?

2004-11-11 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Marco d'Itri wrote:
 On Nov 11, Juergen Salk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  what's the current policy for packaging software that can optionally 
  linked with libssl support? 
 You just do it.

If it causes no openssl+gpl-without-you-can-link-to-openssl license clash.

-- 
  One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Re: How to handle libssl support?

2004-11-11 Thread Daniel Burrows 
On Thursday 11 November 2004 04:11 am, Juergen Salk wrote:
 It seems in Sarge at least some of the crypto crippled versions
 have just vanished into thin air.

  ...which is going to silently leave users running old versions of some 
software.  links-ssl seems to have been replaced with a dummy upgrade 
package, but other *-ssl packages (eg, fetchmail-ssl) were just dropped.  It 
seems to me that any crypto-enhanced package that was moved to main and 
renamed should have a dummy upgrade package in sarge.

  Daniel

-- 
/--- Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] --\
|  Gil-Galad was an Elven king; |
|  of him the harpers sadly sing.   |
\-- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) ---/


pgpG1MglP2WR3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: How to handle libssl support?

2004-11-11 Thread Mike Hommey 
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 10:27:08AM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
 On Thursday 11 November 2004 04:11 am, Juergen Salk wrote:
  It seems in Sarge at least some of the crypto crippled versions
  have just vanished into thin air.
 
   ...which is going to silently leave users running old versions of some 
 software.  links-ssl seems to have been replaced with a dummy upgrade 
 package, but other *-ssl packages (eg, fetchmail-ssl) were just dropped.  It 
 seems to me that any crypto-enhanced package that was moved to main and 
 renamed should have a dummy upgrade package in sarge.

It is not necessary. Look at fetchmail, for instance:
Replaces: popclient, fetchmail-ssl, fetchmail-common
Provides: popclient, fetchmail-ssl, fetchmail-common
Conflicts: popclient, fetchmail-ssl, fetchmail-common, logcheck ( 1.1.1-9)

I don't know and didn't check for the others *-ssl packages, though.

Mike

Re: How to handle libssl support?

2004-11-11 Thread Daniel Burrows 
On Thursday 11 November 2004 10:45 am, Mike Hommey wrote:
 It is not necessary. Look at fetchmail, for instance:
 Replaces: popclient, fetchmail-ssl, fetchmail-common
 Provides: popclient, fetchmail-ssl, fetchmail-common
 Conflicts: popclient, fetchmail-ssl, fetchmail-common, logcheck (
 1.1.1-9)

 I don't know and didn't check for the others *-ssl packages, though.

  Yes, but if you have fetchmail-ssl installed and not fetchmail, an upgrade 
will not install fetchmail.  It might result in fetchmail-ssl being removed 
(since the new fetchmail-common doesn't provide the version it needs), but 
unless some other part of the system depends on fetchmail, you won't end up 
with fetchmail installed.

  Daniel

-- 
/--- Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] --\
|  Almost Winter, Winter, Still Winter, and Construction.   |
\--- Be like the kid in the movie!  Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org --/


pgpqFN6Bk79cH.pgp
Description: PGP signature