Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <o...@debian.org> wrote: > Le dimanche, 4 mai 2014, 02.14:17 peter green a écrit : >> Personally I'd add a (build-)depends on the relicensed gmp in the next >> gnutls28 upload. That way packages can (build-)depend on the new >> gnutls and be assured of getting a GPLv2 compatible version.
Hello, Afaiui it would be perfectly fine to /build/ GPLv2 code against older GMP as long as we distribute the resulting binary only together with the newer GMP binary. (The binary will often be identical, no matter whether it is built against gmp 5.3 or 6). Also I am reluctant with manually overriding gmp shlibs. How about simply adding Breaks: libgmp10 (<< 2:6) to the libgnutls28 binary package? [...] > Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: >> Should we start transition to gnutls28 by default, for all packages >> that are compatible? Due to size of the transition it is a little bit difficult, see <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.release/73990> (Please keep this thread on d-d, -release is not a discussion list.) I have done some test-builds and reported most of the issues I found[1]. Some important library packages have already switched (cups, curl), I guess the next one would be neon or gnome-vfs. cu Andreas [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=gnutls3;users=ametz...@debian.org -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/bpvk3b-ep1....@argenau.downhill.at.eu.org
