* Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote: > I guess the savest way is to have a libldap-nossl-dev and > libldap-ssl-dev. The former should have anything ssl derived > removed. No, that was *worse*. We tried that before. The answer really is reasonably simple- just modify libldap2 to use GNUTLS. That was done w/ an older version of things involved. I expect it'll be done for the newer stuff. > Packages without linking exception can then Build-Depend on > libldap-nossl-dev. If the ssl and nonssl ldap has the same ABI (nonssl > being a subset of ssl to be precise) the package can work with either > lib then. Bleh. Let's just move off of OpenSSL where we can. This is a case where we can, and people have worked on it already, let's finish that off and this time get upstream to accept it (they're annoyingly anal about such things) and be done with it. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature