Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL 1.0.2 certificates

[cc’ing Daniel as OpenSSL maintainer] > On 4 Jan 2017, at 12:47 pm, Hanspeter Niederstrasser > wrote: > > On 1/2/17 9:19 AM, Derek Homeier wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want to check if I am doing something very stupid here, since I am unable >> to properly >> use any apps linking to openssl100-shlib

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL 1.0.2 certificates

On 1/2/17 9:19 AM, Derek Homeier wrote: > Hi, > > I want to check if I am doing something very stupid here, since I am unable > to properly > use any apps linking to openssl100-shlibs (among others wget and python) > since approximately > the update to openssl-1.0.2, as it refuses to accept almos

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL 1.0.2g-1 update breaks python / pip?

> On Mar 9, 2016, at 05:29, Max Horn wrote: > > Hi there, > > I just updated to the latest openssl Fink package. Afterwards, pip was broken: > > $ pip-py2.7 --version > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/sw/bin/pip-py2.7", line 9, in >load_entry_point('pip==8.0.2', 'console_scri

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL

> On Sep 25, 2015, at 11:34 PM, Hanspeter Niederstrasser > wrote: > > On 9/25/2015 7:15 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote: >> So, apparently, Apple deprecated the system OpenSSL as of 10.7: >> http://lists.apple.com/archives/macnetworkprog/2015/Jun/msg00025.html >>

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL

On 9/25/2015 7:15 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote: > So, apparently, Apple deprecated the system OpenSSL as of 10.7: > http://lists.apple.com/archives/macnetworkprog/2015/Jun/msg00025.html > > > I don’t really remember having see

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

Daniel, What if we just set up the bindist to blacklist any GPL software with a BuildDepends on openssl100 from building there? Since this restriction is about binary distributions, if we only provide the user with a script to build the package locally, I don't see how we are in violation.

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

what about a debian style license file They list all different licenses which links to each license in the docs dir, so if a file uses openssl, that file could be under that license and the rest under gpl. I know Debian doesn’t have the same issue since it has ssl as the base system but wouldn

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

> On Jun 21, 2015, at 12:29 AM, TheSin wrote: > > if the license says that pens can not be distributed in binary form wouldn’t > it only be ssl that needs to be built, couldn’t other packages which only > dynamically use the dylib still be binary distributed since it does not > contain the op

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

if the license says that pens can not be distributed in binary form wouldn’t it only be ssl that needs to be built, couldn’t other packages which only dynamically use the dylib still be binary distributed since it does not contain the open ssl code or library directly it only uses and as such is

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 17:05, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Alexander Hansen > mailto:alexanderk.han...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Fedora doesn't have a build dependency on OpenSSL for their cvs package but >> does build it against a MIT licensed krb5 which in tu

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Alexander Hansen < alexanderk.han...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Fedora doesn't have a build dependency on OpenSSL for their cvs > package but does build it against a MIT licensed krb5 which in turn is > built against OpenSSL. > > >> Daniel > > > That’s kind of irrelevan

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

> > Fedora doesn't have a build dependency on OpenSSL for their cvs package but > does build it against a MIT licensed krb5 which in turn is built against > OpenSSL. > > Daniel That’s kind of irrelevant unless they’re using an OpenSSL that doesn’t *come with the OS*. So unless you’re talki

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Daniel Johnson wrote: > > > On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Daniel Johnson > wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Alexander Hansen < > alexanderk.han...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson > wrote: > >>> > >>> >

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 16:03, Daniel Johnson wrote: > >> >> 1+2) Ah. gotcha. As a simple base example then, is our cvs package, which >> uses openssl100, in violation? And if so, do we have to mark it as >> Restrictive? Or worse yet, pull it and stop supporting selfupdate-cvs on >> di

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Daniel Johnson > wrote: > > >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Alexander Hansen >> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote: Since the system’s Op

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:58, Jack Howarth wrote: > > Aren't these restrictions specific to binary distribution system? If so, > couldn't these be blacklisted from the bindist and require the user to build > them locally under fink? > Quoting myself: > And if so, do we have to mark it as Re

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Alexander Hansen > wrote: > > >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Alexander Hansen >>> wrote: >>> >>> Since the system’s OpenSSL is going away for 10.11 we’ve got a bit of a >>> pickle. >>> >>> My und

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

Also it is curious that under the section on the OpenSSL license, this web page claims there is no reason not to build against it. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Jack Howarth wrote: > Aren't these restrictions specific to bin

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

Aren't these restrictions specific to binary distribution system? If so, couldn't these be blacklisted from the bindist and require the user to build them locally under fink? On Saturday, June 20, 2015, Alexander Hansen wrote: > > > On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson > wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 15:03, Daniel Johnson wrote: > > >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Alexander Hansen >> wrote: >> >> Since the system’s OpenSSL is going away for 10.11 we’ve got a bit of a >> pickle. >> >> My understanding is that our packages that use openssl100-dev and have >> binari

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL vs. LibreSSL

> On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Alexander Hansen > wrote: > > Since the system’s OpenSSL is going away for 10.11 we’ve got a bit of a > pickle. > > My understanding is that our packages that use openssl100-dev and have > binaries are now technically in violation of the openssl license, which

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl issue?

On May 10, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Andreas Bießmann wrote: > Dear Daniel Johnson, > > On 09.05.2012 19:08, Andreas Bießmann wrote: >> Dear Daniel Johnson, >> >> it seems to be related to openssl ... and since you are also the >> maintainer of openssl here is the next report. > > well, it seems it i

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl issue?

Dear Daniel Johnson, On 09.05.2012 19:08, Andreas Bießmann wrote: > Dear Daniel Johnson, > > it seems to be related to openssl ... and since you are also the > maintainer of openssl here is the next report. well, it seems it is an error of the server. Please read http://groups.google.com/group/ma

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl dependencies?

On Jul 20, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Robert Wyatt wrote: Daniel Macks wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:28:30PM -0500, Robert Wyatt wrote: Robert T Wyatt wrote: In trying to install pine-ssl in unstable: I'm not sure what's going on, but I think it might have to do with what seems to me like a c

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl dependencies?

Daniel Macks wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:28:30PM -0500, Robert Wyatt wrote: >> Robert T Wyatt wrote: >>> In trying to install pine-ssl in unstable: >>> >>> I'm not sure what's going on, but I think it might have to do with what >>> seems to me like a catch-22: >>> >>> openssl097: Depends: o

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl dependencies?

Alexander Hansen wrote: > Daniel Macks wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> pine was superceded by alpine upstream. Maybe time to replace pine and >> pine-ssl (both presently unmaintaind) with pointers to alpine (which >> is maintained)? The *pine builds are scary-nonstandard...no reason to >> k

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl dependencies?

Daniel Macks wrote: > > > pine was superceded by alpine upstream. Maybe time to replace pine and > pine-ssl (both presently unmaintaind) with pointers to alpine (which > is maintained)? The *pine builds are scary-nonstandard...no reason to > keep obsolete stuff that is difficult to understand

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl dependencies?

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:28:30PM -0500, Robert Wyatt wrote: > Robert T Wyatt wrote: > > In trying to install pine-ssl in unstable: > > > > I'm not sure what's going on, but I think it might have to do with what > > seems to me like a catch-22: > > > > openssl097: Depends: openssl (>= 0.9.7m-5)

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl dependencies?

Robert T Wyatt wrote: > In trying to install pine-ssl in unstable: > > The following 2 additional packages will be installed: > openldap23-dev openldap23-shlibs > > make args are CC=cc 'SSLCERTS=/sw/etc/ssl' > 'SSLINCLUDE=/sw/include/openssl' 'SSLLIB=/sw/lib' > 'EXTRACFLAGS=-I/sw/include' 'EXTR

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl dependencies?

Robert T Wyatt wrote: > In trying to install pine-ssl in unstable: > > I'm not sure what's going on, but I think it might have to do with what > seems to me like a catch-22: > > openssl097: Depends: openssl (>= 0.9.7m-5) > > openssl conflicts with openssl097, but openssl097 is installed Now tha

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-0.9.8k-1 fails build due to capitalization?

On 20/4/09 20:54, Alexander Hansen wrote: > Try again: supposedly the mirror process just recently got unstuck. Yup, got it now, thanks. Mike -- Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-0.9.8k-1 fails build due to capitalization?

Mike Zanker wrote: > On 20/4/09 18:52, Alexander Hansen wrote: > > >> It works for me (TM). >> >> See if running "fink index -f" straightens out any bad timestamping. >> > > Doesn't help, I'm afraid. > > Mike > > Try again: supposedly the mirror process just recently got unstuck. --

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-0.9.8k-1 fails build due to capitalization?

On 20/4/09 18:52, Alexander Hansen wrote: > It works for me (TM). > > See if running "fink index -f" straightens out any bad timestamping. Doesn't help, I'm afraid. Mike -- Stay on top of everything new and different

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-0.9.8k-1 fails build due to capitalization?

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote: > Mirroring may have gotten stuck. Updating from CVS works (that's what I > did). That seems to have worked! Building now. -- Stay on top of everything new and di

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-0.9.8k-1 fails build due to capitalization?

Stephen J. Butler wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Alexander Hansen > wrote: > >> Mike Zanker wrote: >> >>> On 20/04/09 17:57, Alexander Hansen wrote: >>> >>> Do a selfupdate: the current version is 0.9.8k-3. >>> Still getting 0.9.8k-1 here using rsync:/

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-0.9.8k-1 fails build due to capitalization?

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote: > Mike Zanker wrote: >> On 20/04/09 17:57, Alexander Hansen wrote: >> >>> Do a selfupdate: the current version is 0.9.8k-3. >> >> Still getting 0.9.8k-1 here using rsync://distfiles.master.finkmirrors.net. > > It works for me (TM). > > See

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-0.9.8k-1 fails build due to capitalization?

Mike Zanker wrote: > On 20/04/09 17:57, Alexander Hansen wrote: > > >> Do a selfupdate: the current version is 0.9.8k-3. >> > > Still getting 0.9.8k-1 here using rsync://distfiles.master.finkmirrors.net. > > Mike > > It works for me (TM). See if running "fink index -f" straightens out

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-0.9.8k-1 fails build due to capitalization?

On 20/04/09 17:57, Alexander Hansen wrote: > Do a selfupdate: the current version is 0.9.8k-3. Still getting 0.9.8k-1 here using rsync://distfiles.master.finkmirrors.net. Mike -- Stay on top of everything new and differ

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-0.9.8k-1 fails build due to capitalization?

Kevin G. Mess wrote: > Hi. I'm unable to build openssl-0.9.8k-1 on repeated attempts due to > the same error. Which is good. It's when an error isn't repeatable that things are scary. > On the surface, it seems to be a capitalization error > of MD5.3 versus md5.3 while setting up the man page

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-0.9.8k-1 fails build due to capitalization?

openssl-0.9.8k has been at -3 for a day or two already. Have you selfupdated lately? dan On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 06:52:39AM -0700, Kevin G. Mess wrote: > Hi. I'm unable to build openssl-0.9.8k-1 on repeated attempts due to > the same error. On the surface, it seems to be a capitalization error

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl MD5?

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 01:44:28AM -0400, David Fang wrote: > > Which md5 checksum is correct? should the package's md5 be updated? It seems that the package has just not been mirrored correctly. I found that if I manually downloaded the package from on of the debian mirrors (http://mirror.ucc.us

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl packages

On 24 Mar 2007, at 02:03, Jean-François Mertens wrote: > i.e., in fact (on 10.4), linking to 0.9.7l libs using 0.9.7i headers > (cf {,/usr/bin/}openssl version) > (# fgrep -rI OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER /{usr,sw}/include/openssl/ > opensslv.h >> /usr/include/openssl/opensslv.h:#define OPENSSL_VERSIO

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl packages

On 23 Mar 2007, at 21:03, Alexander K. Hansen wrote: > The general preference these days is to link to the OpenSSL libraries > that ship with the OS, because i.e., in fact (on 10.4), linking to 0.9.7l libs using 0.9.7i headers (cf {,/usr/bin/}openssl version) (# fgrep -rI OPENSSL_VERSION_

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl packages

Alexey Zakhlestin wrote: > there are currently several openssl packages: > openssl* (which is 0.9.6, actually) > openssl097* > system-openssl-dev > > I wonder why openssl package is left at an older version… > Which of these is preferred to be set as dependency? > > p.s. actually, 0.9.8 branch is a

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-linked packages: need new license type?

On Jun 14, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:On Jun 14, 2005, at 4:51 AM, Daniel Macks wrote: OTOH, we could generalize the solution away from "fink's openssllinkage policy" and just add a new Restrictive/Source-Distributablelicense type. I have no doubt that some of the other Restrictivepack

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl-linked packages: need new license type?

On Jun 14, 2005, at 4:51 AM, Daniel Macks wrote: OTOH, we could generalize the solution away from "fink's openssl linkage policy" and just add a new Restrictive/Source-Distributable license type. I have no doubt that some of the other Restrictive packages may allow souce redistribution but (for

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl | openssl097

On Aug 23, 2004, at 6:21 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: On Aug 23, 2004, at 11:58 AM, Daniel Macks wrote: I see several packages have constructs like: Depends: openssl-shlibs | openssl097-shlibs BuildDepends: openssl-dev | openssl097-dev I apologize; I completely misread this message the first ti

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl | openssl097

On Aug 23, 2004, at 11:58 AM, Daniel Macks wrote: I see several packages have constructs like: Depends: openssl-shlibs | openssl097-shlibs BuildDepends: openssl-dev | openssl097-dev This is not correct--if, for example, one has openssl097-dev installed at build-time, then one *must* have openss

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl 0.9.7 - stable tree

Argh, sadly the idea ("appending a to the revision) in my previous email is bogus, at least for any package with a patch file - fink wouldn't find that patch anymore... sigh Guess I'll write a script to make the rev up (semi) automatic Max

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl woes

At 8:27 Uhr -0500 30.01.2003, David R. Morrison wrote: Well, Max, I like your strategy and I agree it would be a great application of the shlibs project. However, this part of the shlibs project isn't implemented yet! I have to write the code and integrate it into Fink, and I haven't had time to

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl woes

On Donnerstag, Jänner 30, 2003, at 02:17 Uhr, Max Horn wrote: First of, openssh refuses to work with 0.9.7 when linked against 0.9.6: OpenSSL version mismatch. Built against 90607f, you have 90700f (this is a manual check performed by all ssh* tools). This is indeed a manual check performed o

Re: [Fink-devel] openssl woes

Well, Max, I like your strategy and I agree it would be a great application of the shlibs project. However, this part of the shlibs project isn't implemented yet! I have to write the code and integrate it into Fink, and I haven't had time to do that. However, even without the shlibs code this ca

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL question

At 16:39 Uhr -0700 25.09.2002, Ben Hines wrote: >On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 04:29 PM, Martin Costabel wrote: > >>Pejvan BEIGUI wrote: >>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>>Hash: SHA1 >>>Hi there, >>>I just made a fresh install of 10.2 and reinstalled from scratch fink, >>>following t

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL question

On Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 04:29 PM, Martin Costabel wrote: > Pejvan BEIGUI wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> Hi there, >> I just made a fresh install of 10.2 and reinstalled from scratch fink, >> following the guide on the web site. Everything runned perfe

Re: [Fink-devel] OpenSSL question

Pejvan BEIGUI wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi there, > > I just made a fresh install of 10.2 and reinstalled from scratch fink, > following the guide on the web site. Everything runned perfectly, I'm so > happy with that. Big big cheers to the team :-) > > while