Re: ITP: Galeon -- Mozilla-based web browser with GNOME look and feel
On 02 Mar 2001 01:57:54 -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> What about splitting off PSM and putting that in its own package? Or
> another version of the package (like lynx vs lynx-ssl)?
Let me see if I can put this in small easy to understand words since it
must not have been clear.
Mozilla's tarred source from upstream contains crypto code
Removing this from the build is more work than I am willing to do, since
I don't think there is anyone
in the world who really wants another browser with no crypto support
I can't split it off
Lynx uses a _patch_ to get SSL, it does not have SSL natively in the
source (I haven't looked,
but the patch may have been integrated upstream, if so, see the next
Lynx uses OpenSSL, it doesn't have SSL natively in the source
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Jules Bean wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 05:44:54PM -0500, Frank Belew wrote:
> > > On 01 Mar 2001 23:35:14 +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > > > >> Frank Belew <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry, but mozilla is a little difficult to put into main now that
> > > > > there is crypto code and I really don't think we want to put
> > > > > everything that even wants to recommend mozilla, let alone depends on
> > > > > it into non-US
> > > >
> > > > Uhm... what does that mean? That you are working on splitting/removing
> > > > the crypto out of mozilla or that you won't upload mozilla because, as
> > > > it is now, it would have to move to non-US along with the packages that
> > > > depend/recommend it? AFAIU, there's no legal problem for you as a US
> > > > citizen because Mozilla is free, and it's not a problem for the
> > > > packages (modulo galeon and the like), because Mozilla is not the only
> > > > web browser out there. And I see no problem with uploading something
> > > > to non-US/main, that's Debian, too.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Marcelo
> > >
> > > First off, the crypto is in the source, and if I removed it, people
> > > would bitch even louder since they wouldn't have the PSM, which is one
> > > of the biggest advantages to 0.7 and later.
> > > Second, look at what depends on mozilla....
> > > Galeon, SkipStone, Nautilus, probably others...
> > > You want to move all of this to non-US ?
> > > I don't think non-US has the computing power, nor the bandwidth to
> > > handle the building, and downloads of all these very popular packages.
> > > Do we even have autobuilders for non-US?
> > OK, so now I don't understand.
> > Are you saying that you haven't uploaded mozilla because it's a
> > complex packagin job, and you haven't finished? If so, fair enough.
YES, it is a complex packaging job, and I haven't finished with 0.8
No, I'm not just going to uupdate from the M18 packages, since I'm doing
it the Right Way(tm) this time
Right now I have it set up so that there are many packages: browser,
mailnews, psm, chatzilla, and xmlterm
Along with a completely separate build of libnspr from separate upstream
> > Or are you saying that you haven't uploaded it because it can't go to
> > main, and you don't want to put it in non-US? If that's the case, then
> > I think a solution is warranted: that doesn't sound like a problem
> > which is going to go away. Perhaps it should be discussed here.
> > Jules
Yes, a Solution is warranted, the people who proposed that the crypto
clause be removed from policy need
to get a lawyer to ratify it
There has already been a 50+ message thread discussing it on -policy,
the proposal was seconded, and accepted,
pending a lawyer verifying that our interpretation of the US export laws
So no, I'm not going to upload to main due to crypto.
I'm not going to upload to non-US due to the proposal merely needing a
If you want anymore out of me, please, get the policy proposal aborted,
or get a lawyer. I am not going to explain