Soren Hansen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 10:18:41PM +0800, Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote: > >> What is the deal with disabling support for tls/peap and going so far >> as to check for linking to libssl in the rules file to break building >> the package with openssl support? >> > > /usr/share/doc/freeradius/copyright explains it: > ---- > Some GPL parts of this software depend on OpenSSL, the combination of > which cannot be distributed in compiled binary form. > ---- > http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2
Maybe somebody can get the freeradius folks to clarify things. Or should it be the other way round? After all, use != distribution... > The debian/rules snippet is presumably there to ensure that noone > accidentally uploads something to the archive in Debian (from whence > this this change originated) that violates this. > > One could argue that we can reasonably safely remove this, because we > always build packages in a clean environment[1], and we have little > benefit from preventing people from building them locally and using them > locally. They are simply undistributable, so as long as we never have > them in the archive, we're in the clear, no? Or add a comment to rules about the need to comment out the check if one wants to rebuild freeradius with tls/peap support. But since you do not have to recompile everything anyway, it is really not a big deal. I just wanted to know why what look like drastic measures are in place. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
