On Sunday 17 December 2006 10:29, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> You ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> Probably we should accurately specify suffixes of packages,
> >> e.g. make them libssh-0 and libssh2-0 to avoid libssh2 package
> >> which is actually libssh with soname bumped to 2. Source packages
>
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 11:44:27AM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> Make sure you compile it with --with-libgcrypt, so that it really is
> LGPL. If it's linked to OpenSSL, then a GPLed application using this
> library probably needs to add a license exception before we can
> distribute it.
Ehm, never
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:03:51PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> I'm looking for a sponsor for the libssh package :
>
> * Package name: libssh
> Version : 0.2rc
> Upstream Author : "Aris Adamantiadis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : h
You ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Probably we should accurately specify suffixes of packages,
>> e.g. make them libssh-0 and libssh2-0 to avoid libssh2 package
>> which is actually libssh with soname bumped to 2. Source packages
>> libssh and libssh2 are ok.
JGB> Do you mean libssh-SONAME a
You ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> I have to raise the problem that two projects 'libssh' and 'libssh2'
>> (http://libssh2.org/) are existing (and I will ITP libssh2 soon).
>>
>> This may easily lead to the clash of names.
JGB> I'm aware of this problem, but is there any solution other than
On Sunday 17 December 2006 05:54, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> You ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> JGB> Hi everybody, I'm looking for a sponsor for the libssh package :
> JGB> * Package name: libssh
>
> I have to raise the problem that two projects 'libssh' and 'libssh2'
> (http://libssh2.org/) ar
You ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
JGB> Hi everybody, I'm looking for a sponsor for the libssh package :
JGB> * Package name: libssh
I have to raise the problem that two projects 'libssh' and 'libssh2'
(http://libssh2.org/) are existing (and I will ITP libssh2 soon).
This may easily lead to t
Hi,
> > > You will probably want to look at the following code:
> > >
> > > gnutls:libextra/gnutls_openssl.c
> > > This code is incomplete, but does most of the things
> >
> > The part that misses is the part I need :( (ie PEM_read_DSAPrivateKey
> > and PEM_read_RSAPrivateKey)
>
> Considering
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 02:04:32PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote :
> > > > That said, I think too we should favor libgcrypt, because it has a
> > > > lighter security record.
> > >
> > > I mailed him about that and SONAME versionning.
> >
> > I got his reply. As Junichi thought, he doesn't know a
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Quite untrue. The LGPL doesn't make any difference between those two
>> cases.
>>
>
> But that will disallow one option that should be granted through
> the use of LGPL: the option to use GPL.
Not really. You can still take libssh and mak a derived w
Hi,
> > > The point of the LGPL is to avoid such incompatibilities. If you can
> > > link it with proprietary code, you can also link it to code under the
> > > OpenSSL license.
> >
> > Hmm... you can use a LGPL library, but a LGPL library cannot use
> > a non-compliant library. That's how LGPL
Le dimanche 10 juillet 2005 à 14:01 +0900, Junichi Uekawa a écrit :
> > The point of the LGPL is to avoid such incompatibilities. If you can
> > link it with proprietary code, you can also link it to code under the
> > OpenSSL license.
>
> Hmm... you can use a LGPL library, but a LGPL library cann
> > > That said, I think too we should favor libgcrypt, because it has a
> > > lighter security record.
> >
> > I mailed him about that and SONAME versionning.
>
> I got his reply. As Junichi thought, he doesn't know about SONAME
> versionning. I pointed to him chapter 6 of the libtool manual.
Hi,
> > Are you sure?
> > People were running around GPL is not compatible with
> > openssl license; and LGPL has a option to make the
> > code GPL.
>
> The point of the LGPL is to avoid such incompatibilities. If you can
> link it with proprietary code, you can also link it to code under the
[Gustavo Noronha Silva]
> > +liblibssh 0.11 libssh (>> 0.11-0), libssh (<< 0.11-99)
>
> I don't get the << 0.11-99. Why would you add this?
I imagine he meant (<< 0.12). On the theory that since upstream is
using 0.11 as the soname, upstream 0.12 will probably be incompatible.
signature.asc
D
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:32:27PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester wrote :
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:56:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote :
> > Le vendredi 08 juillet 2005 ? 06:46 +0900, Junichi Uekawa a ?crit :
> > > > > 1. It's linking with openssl, and claiming to be LGPL, which
> > >
Hey,
Em Ter, 2005-07-05 às 10:37 +0900, Junichi Uekawa escreveu:
> --- libssh-0.11.orig/debian/shlibs.local
> +++ libssh-0.11/debian/shlibs.local
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +liblibssh 0.11 libssh (>> 0.11-0), libssh (<< 0.11-99)
I don't get the << 0.11-99. Why would you add this?
See ya,
--
[EMAIL PROT
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:56:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote :
> Le vendredi 08 juillet 2005 ? 06:46 +0900, Junichi Uekawa a ?crit :
> > > > 1. It's linking with openssl, and claiming to be LGPL, which
> > > > I understand to be incompatible.
> > >
> > > It is compatible.
> >
> > Are you s
Hi,
> >
> > I have two comments:
> >
> > 1. It's linking with openssl, and claiming to be LGPL, which
> > I understand to be incompatible.
>
> It is compatible.
Are you sure?
People were running around GPL is not compatible with
openssl license; and LGPL has a option to make the
code GPL.
Le vendredi 08 juillet 2005 à 06:46 +0900, Junichi Uekawa a écrit :
> > > 1. It's linking with openssl, and claiming to be LGPL, which
> > > I understand to be incompatible.
> >
> > It is compatible.
>
> Are you sure?
> People were running around GPL is not compatible with
> openssl license;
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:36:39AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote :
>
> Hi,
>
> > > > Should the package name contain the version number? (like the libssl
> > > > packages)
> > >
> > > Yes, it should be called libssh-0.11-0.
> >
> > I'd rather call it libssh0.11 or libssh-0.11, since the -0 is the
Hi,
> > > Should the package name contain the version number? (like the libssl
> > > packages)
> >
> > Yes, it should be called libssh-0.11-0.
>
> I'd rather call it libssh0.11 or libssh-0.11, since the -0 is the
> package version number (I took the libssl0.9.7 package as example :
> package na
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:24:29PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester wrote :
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:34:37PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote :
> > Le mardi 05 juillet 2005 ? 18:27 +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester a
> > ?crit :
> > > I see your point. I tried to fix that. Hope I didn't d
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:34:37PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote :
> Le mardi 05 juillet 2005 ? 18:27 +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester a
> ?crit :
> > I see your point. I tried to fix that. Hope I didn't do it wrong
> > (again). If someone could check...
>
> I don't understand your modificati
Le mardi 05 juillet 2005 à 18:27 +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester a
écrit :
> I see your point. I tried to fix that. Hope I didn't do it wrong
> (again). If someone could check...
I don't understand your modifications. There are differences in the
Makefile.in and configure files, but no diffe
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:39:14PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote :
> Le mardi 05 juillet 2005 ? 16:34 +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester a
> ?crit :
> > > 1. It's linking with openssl, and claiming to be LGPL, which
> > > I understand to be incompatible.
> >
> > I assume that linking with li
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 04:34:42PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester wrote :
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:26:25PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote :
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > > The package can be downloaded at http://dgnr.free.fr/repository, or
> > > > > with apt-get with "deb http://dgnr.free.fr/ reposi
Le mardi 05 juillet 2005 à 16:34 +0200, Jean-Philippe Garcia Ballester a
écrit :
> > 1. It's linking with openssl, and claiming to be LGPL, which
> > I understand to be incompatible.
>
> I assume that linking with libcrypto.so and not libssl.so does not
> change the problem?
> I'll talk to upst
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:26:25PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote :
> Hi,
>
> > > > The package can be downloaded at http://dgnr.free.fr/repository, or
> > > > with apt-get with "deb http://dgnr.free.fr/ repository/"
> > >
> > > From the look of it, your packaging looks wrong.
> > > You're probably
Le mardi 05 juillet 2005 à 20:26 +0900, Junichi Uekawa a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> > > > The package can be downloaded at http://dgnr.free.fr/repository, or
> > > > with apt-get with "deb http://dgnr.free.fr/ repository/"
> > >
> > > From the look of it, your packaging looks wrong.
> > > You're probably
Hi,
> > > The package can be downloaded at http://dgnr.free.fr/repository, or
> > > with apt-get with "deb http://dgnr.free.fr/ repository/"
> >
> > From the look of it, your packaging looks wrong.
> > You're probably creating a package that ignores SONAME versioning.
>
> I'm not exactly sure to
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 10:37:00AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote :
>
> Hi,
>
> > The package can be downloaded at http://dgnr.free.fr/repository, or
> > with apt-get with "deb http://dgnr.free.fr/ repository/"
>
> From the look of it, your packaging looks wrong.
> You're probably creating a packag
Hi,
> The package can be downloaded at http://dgnr.free.fr/repository, or
> with apt-get with "deb http://dgnr.free.fr/ repository/"
From the look of it, your packaging looks wrong.
You're probably creating a package that ignores SONAME versioning.
--- libssh-0.11.orig/debian/shlibs.local
+++
33 matches
Mail list logo
