Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:50:00PM +1000, Brian May wrote: > > "Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Steve> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell > Steve> BSG wrote: > >> I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have > >> t

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Sep 13, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh, BTW, gnutls isn't a complete 100% solution either, IIRC packages > exist that require openssl because the license is GPL incompatible. No, it has been LGPL'ed since a long time. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: curl situation is intolerable

> "Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Steve> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell Steve> BSG wrote: >> I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have >> the job of deciding whether the packages implement the same ABI >>

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Sep 13, Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There isn't? I thought this has been standard GPL lore for a very long > > time - if you link to an *interface* which has a GPL-compliant > > implementation, it does not matter if you also are incidentally runtime- > > compatible with a

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On 9/13/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Olaf van der Spek] > > > I thought that if the interface matches the user can link whatever > > > he wants, because he doesn't (re)distribute the results. > > [Steve Langasek] > > There isn't universal agreement on this point, and it's

Re: curl situation is intolerable

[Olaf van der Spek] > > I thought that if the interface matches the user can link whatever > > he wants, because he doesn't (re)distribute the results. [Steve Langasek] > There isn't universal agreement on this point, and it's never > actually been tested in court. There isn't? I thought this

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Sep 12, Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I do not believe that it's worth the effort, there are no really good > > reasons to use OpenSSL in the long time. > > Development effort should be focused on fixing any eventual gnutls bugs > > (either in the library itself or in the libcu

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Folks, *please* consider to help with the implementation of the real > solution for libcurl4, i.e. several SSL backends to just one libcurl.so > "front-end", without installation conflicts, modular and compatible with > all licenses. See the second hal

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have the job >> of deciding whether the packages implement the same ABI or not. >> DECIDE. > >> If the answer is "yes", the

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:05:23PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 12, Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks, *please* consider to help with the implementation of the real > > solution for libcurl4, i.e. several SSL backends to just one libcurl.so > > "front-end", without install

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:09:31AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On 9/12/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have the job > > > of deciding whether

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Sep 12, Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, *please* consider to help with the implementation of the real > solution for libcurl4, i.e. several SSL backends to just one libcurl.so > "front-end", without installation conflicts, modular and compatible with > all licenses. See the

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Scripsit Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > yesterday i was rolling a new upload with a modified name for > libcurl3-gnutls to allow both the packages to be installed at the same > time when i finally understood why i probably need versioned symbols. However unacceptable the current situatio

Re: Bug#318590: curl situation is intolerable

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 03:03:02AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:34:22AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > will libcurl3 with versioned symbols break existing packages linked > > to it? > > It will not. good > It would be best to coordinate with upstream to get symb

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 11:34:22AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > will libcurl3 with versioned symbols break existing packages linked > to it? It will not. It would be best to coordinate with upstream to get symbol versioning added there as well, so that binaries built against the symbol-versi

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Folks, *please* consider to help with the implementation of the real solution for libcurl4, i.e. several SSL backends to just one libcurl.so "front-end", without installation conflicts, modular and compatible with all licenses. See the second half of .

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Mind you, the license/OpenSSLCallback conflict neccessarily > > segregates the packages into two camps, those which are GPL, and > > those which need the callback only suppli

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On 9/12/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have the job > > of deciding whether the packages implement the same ABI or not. > > DECIDE. > > > If the answe

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > I don't care about the callback. The package maintainers have the job > of deciding whether the packages implement the same ABI or not. > DECIDE. > If the answer is "yes", then they should both be drop-in replacements, > and P

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:46:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Mind you, the license/OpenSSLCallback conflict neccessarily >> segregates the packages into two camps, those which are GPL, and >> those which need the callback only supplied by

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mind you, the license/OpenSSLCallback conflict neccessarily > segregates the packages into two camps, those which are GPL, and > those which need the callback only supplied by the OpenSSL-linked > libcurl. You misunderstand my complaint. I do not

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 08:59:11PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >>> It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared >>> libraries, where there are easy solutions: M

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared >> libraries, where there are easy solutions: MAKE TWO LIBRARIES THAT >> HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES. > > The package has to bui

Re: Bug#318590: curl situation is intolerable

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:54:17AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared > > > libraries, where there are easy solutions:

Re: Bug#318590: curl situation is intolerable

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:54:17AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared > > libraries, where there are easy solutions: MAKE TWO LIBRARIES THAT > > HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES. >

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > It is *absolutely intolerable* to declare such conflicts for shared > libraries, where there are easy solutions: MAKE TWO LIBRARIES THAT > HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES. The package has to build libraries with differently versioned symbols as well, to avoid

Re: curl situation is intolerable

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 10:21:51PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> There should be TWO libcurls, with DIFFERENT names, and then >> applications can simply link against whichever one they want, instead >> of the current approach, which totally brea

Re: curl situation is intolerable

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There should be TWO libcurls, with DIFFERENT names, and then > applications can simply link against whichever one they want, instead > of the current approach, which totally breaks, violates policy, and > doesn't really help much of anyone. I real

curl situation is intolerable

reopen 318590 severity 318590 serious thanks So my package, libofx, builds a binary that wants to use curl. My package is GPL'd. Getting a libssl exemption is not the right thing, nor should it be necessary. I would like to build the package against libcurl3-gnutls-dev which will be just fine.