Hi Brian, On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 19:51:38 +0000 "brian m. carlson" <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
It looks like git upstream -expects- to be linked to OpenSSL. But if the position of upstream committers is that this would produce something undistributable, that would be very surprising.
This is totally fine if I'm building against the distro OpenSSL and I'm not distributing OpenSSL. For instance, a company I'm familiar with shipped Git linked against the distro OpenSSL and distributed only Git, but not OpenSSL.[...] In Debian's case, the component (OpenSSL) accompanies the executable (Git) on the mirrors and on install media, so it doesn't apply. In the case of that company, they could avail themselves of the distro OpenSSL since they were not distributing it, only Git. So for most people building Git for local use, this is a fine default.
Let's assume for the sake of the argument that your interpretation is correct.
Then help me make sense of this. You are not objecting against linking with OpenSSL on principle but on a technicality: we are creating the very same distro package that literally anyone except us is supposedly allowed to link against with Git.
So why does upstream not grant the OpenSSL linking exception, which is one common way to deal with this issue? Surely the discrimination against Linux distributions is not the desired outcome but merely an artifact?
Cheers Timo -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling │ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1 23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
