* Daniel Jacobowitz
| On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:50:29PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| * Andreas Barth
|
| | Agreed. We should IMHO make such a requirement to be part of etchs
| | release policy.
|
| How are you going to solve the problem ia32-libs solves if not in this
| way?
|
|
* Andreas Barth
| Agreed. We should IMHO make such a requirement to be part of etchs
| release policy.
How are you going to solve the problem ia32-libs solves if not in this
way?
(Unless we want to make etch fully multiarchified, which I don't think
we will.)
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:50:29PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Andreas Barth
| Agreed. We should IMHO make such a requirement to be part of etchs
| release policy.
How are you going to solve the problem ia32-libs solves if not in this
way?
(Unless we want to make etch fully
Christian Hammers wrote:
I could package the whole libsnmp source code into the Quagga file, and
simply compile it with --without-openssl and then link it statically
or something similar brute force and ugly.
FWIW: Please don't. This would mean creating a security-support nightmare.
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:45:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Christian Hammers wrote:
I could package the whole libsnmp source code into the Quagga file, and
simply compile it with --without-openssl and then link it statically
or something similar brute force and ugly.
FWIW: Please
* Stephen Quinney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050509 17:20]:
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:45:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Christian Hammers wrote:
I could package the whole libsnmp source code into the Quagga file, and
simply compile it with --without-openssl and then link it statically
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
Who is sorry? How sorry?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this sorry-ness is not
something that matters
, that this sorry-ness is not
something that matters enough to you to avoid posting long and
elliptical messages to debian-devel.
As I wrote, debian-devel is where the Urgently need GPL compatible
libsnmp5-dev replacement discussion is happening. Andrew's somewhat
disingenuous This part
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
The GPL simply defers to copyright law to define derivative
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Second sentence in Section 0: The Program, below, refers to any
such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either
the Program or any derivative work under
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Second sentence in Section 0: The Program, below, refers to any
such program or work, and a work based on the Program
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you're objecting to the that is to say phrase, which restates
what
work based on the Program: means.
Attempts to,
I don't, except insofar as C - the Program attempts to paraphrase E
- the Program (= D).
Oh for Pete's sake, (E - the Program) (= D). What a great place for
a word wrap.
- Michael
Andrew Suffield wrote:
[This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
So, there it goes.
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Paul TBBle Hampson]
This of course assumes the phrase derived work is legalese for
code dependancy or something. I'm sure the GPL
On 5/4/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this. But that's where
this discussion is actually happening now, and I'm afraid I
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:06:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
The license of the GNUTLS OpenSSL shim is GPL, causing possible license
problems in the other direction with GPL-incompatible apps. It's also not a
very complete compatibility layer.
So dynamically link against _an_ SSL
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:08:01AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:06:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
The license of the GNUTLS OpenSSL shim is GPL, causing possible license
problems in the other direction with GPL-incompatible apps. It's also not a
very
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 20:15 -0400, David Mandelberg wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 19:40 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
GNU version of OpenSSL (I don't recall how
it is called).
GnuTLS I think.
Stupid mail misconfiguration, I sent this before I got Christian
Hammer's reply
hi
I happen to mantain 'snmpkit' ; you may give it a look
a.
Christian Hammers wrote:
Hello
[regarding #306840 and with more info in #243870]
One of my packages, Quagga, is licenced under the GPL but is supposed to
get linked against NetSNMP. That now is problematic, as NetSNMP depends
[Paul TBBle Hampson]
This of course assumes the phrase derived work is legalese for
code dependancy or something. I'm sure the GPL actually defines
what _they_ mean by it...
One false assumption and one false premise.
Derived work is legalese for this work is based, at least in part,
on this
[This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Paul TBBle Hampson]
This of course assumes the phrase derived work is legalese for
code dependancy or something. I'm sure the GPL actually defines
what _they_ mean by it...
The
Hello
[regarding #306840 and with more info in #243870]
One of my packages, Quagga, is licenced under the GPL but is supposed to
get linked against NetSNMP. That now is problematic, as NetSNMP depends
on OpenSSL (for SNMPv3 crypto support?) which is not GPL compatible.
Does anybody know a good
On Wed, 04 May 2005, Christian Hammers wrote:
One of my packages, Quagga, is licenced under the GPL but is supposed to
get linked against NetSNMP. That now is problematic, as NetSNMP depends
on OpenSSL (for SNMPv3 crypto support?) which is not GPL compatible.
A simple extension to Quagga's
Hello
On 2005-05-03 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005, Christian Hammers wrote:
One of my packages, Quagga, is licenced under the GPL but is supposed to
get linked against NetSNMP. That now is problematic, as NetSNMP depends
on OpenSSL (for SNMPv3 crypto support?)
On May 04, Christian Hammers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could package the whole libsnmp source code into the Quagga file, and
simply compile it with --without-openssl and then link it statically
or something similar brute force and ugly.
Or even better just disable SNMP support, which is not
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 19:40 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
GNU version of OpenSSL (I don't recall how
it is called).
GnuTLS I think.
--
The attachment signature.asc (if it exists) is a digital signature.
Unless you know what that is, you can completely ignore it. It is mostly
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:40:24PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005, Christian Hammers wrote:
One of my packages, Quagga, is licenced under the GPL but is supposed to
get linked against NetSNMP. That now is problematic, as NetSNMP depends
on OpenSSL (for SNMPv3
27 matches
Mail list logo
