Hi Rogerio, Rogério Brito wrote: > I think that there are other packages in the archive that include this > file. That being said, why not use one of the libraries that already > provide md5 implementations? [...] > The samething here. I, for instance, use libssl-dev for a package of > mine (hfsprogs) that needs sha1 implementations. > > You may also consider using the gnutls implmentation of those. A small > patch to adapt those might be very fruitful. > > Also, when the libraries providing the functions get improvements (like, > for instance, specialized versions optimized for some newer CPU arch), > you get those for for your programs. And maintenance becomes easier.
The question was about licenses because if they were ok I would build as is. This is the scenario: the application I'm packaging [1] includes and depends on a class library [2], a bunch of classes for many purposes, which includes and depends on those sha1/md5 implementations. I already tried both openssl-dev and gnutls but function names change and I should patch the code. I would try other ways. An alternative way could be removing them from build process given that, class library is a collection of classes but it seems that main application doesn't use those md5/sha1-related classes. Any license points of view? Cheers, Gabriele [1] http://bugs.debian.org/559412 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/559719 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
