Re: Bug#291945: eleventh-hour transition for mysql-using packages related to apache
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Cc: Christian Hammers <ch@lathspell.de>, sean finney <seanius@debian.org>, 291945@bugs.debian.org, pam-mysql@packages.debian.org, linesrv-mysql@packages.debian.org, pure-ftpd-mysql@packages.debian.org, proftpd-mysql@packages.debian.org, courier-authmysql@packages.debian.org, Francesco Paolo Lovergine <frankie@debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#291945: eleventh-hour transition for mysql-using packages related to apache
- From: Francesco Paolo Lovergine <frankie@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:53:34 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20050212085332.GC9189@frankie.is-a-geek.org>
- Mail-followup-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Christian Hammers <ch@lathspell.de>, sean finney <seanius@debian.org>, 291945@bugs.debian.org, pam-mysql@packages.debian.org, linesrv-mysql@packages.debian.org, pure-ftpd-mysql@packages.debian.org, proftpd-mysql@packages.debian.org, courier-authmysql@packages.debian.org, Francesco Paolo Lovergine <frankie@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20050212083957.GG4513@mauritius.dodds.net>
- References: <20050128130326.GF8642@mauritius.dodds.net> <20050129133407.GA2871@downhill.at.eu.org> <20050131213007.GA7236@frankie.is-a-geek.org> <[🔎] 20050202204931.GA5910@downhill.aus.cc> <[🔎] 20050211091555.GB14079@ba.issia.cnr.it> <[🔎] 20050211133134.GA24294@seanius.net> <[🔎] 20050211153144.3503d309@xeniac.intern> <[🔎] 20050211233059.GA31680@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net> <[🔎] 20050212081425.GA9189@frankie.is-a-geek.org> <[🔎] 20050212083957.GG4513@mauritius.dodds.net>
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 12:39:58AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > Nice, so we should check that any linked GPL library directly (obviuolsy) or
> > indirectly (with N=1,2,3... levels of indirection) linked against
> > openssl adds the exception.
>
> No, we should simply not be linking libmysqlclient against OpenSSL. The
> exemption was needed because there exists software that uses both
> libmysqlclient and libssl, but making libmysqlclient itself use libssl just
> because we now have the exemption will cause licensing problems for
> applications which currently do *not* depend on libssl.
>
That's clear, I meant simply that if program A links libB which links libC
which links libssl, than both A, libB and libC should add the exception,
isn't it? That's independently from having A using libssl functions
directly or not.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: