On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 03:36 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 23:36 +0200, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > > Package: linux-tools-2.6.36 > > Version: 2.6.36-1~experimental.1 > > Severity: serious > > > > /usr/share/doc/linux-tools-2.6.36/copyright gives me the impression > > that we have a license to distribute /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 only under > > the terms of the GPLv2. Is this correct? > > > > It seems that perf_2.6.36 uses openssl: > > > > $ ldd /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36|grep ssl > > libssl.so.0.9.8 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.0.9.8 (0x00007f20fad1f000) > > > > Has perf upstream given an exception to GPLv2 to allow us to do this > > or is this indeed a real problem? > > I have no idea what the upstream developers intended, they seem a bit > clueless about distribution. I only just realised that they try to use > libbfd (GPLv3, incompatible) even though perf can get the same > functionality from libiberty (GPLv2)!
This is due to embedding Python: $ objdump -p /usr/bin/perf_2.6.36 | grep NEEDED NEEDED libperl.so.5.10 NEEDED libdl.so.2 NEEDED libm.so.6 NEEDED libpthread.so.0 NEEDED libc.so.6 NEEDED libcrypt.so.1 NEEDED libutil.so.1 NEEDED libpython2.6.so.1.0 NEEDED librt.so.1 NEEDED libelf.so.1 NEEDED libnewt.so.0.52 NEEDED libslang.so.2 NEEDED libbfd-2.20.1-system.20100303.so $ objdump -p /usr/lib/libpython2.6.so.1.0 | grep NEEDED NEEDED libssl.so.0.9.8 NEEDED libcrypto.so.0.9.8 NEEDED libz.so.1 NEEDED libpthread.so.0 NEEDED libdl.so.2 NEEDED libutil.so.1 NEEDED libm.so.6 NEEDED libc.so.6 Since perf doesn't use any of the functionality in libssl via Python, I'm not convinced there's a problem here. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
