[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Who needs libcurl3? (was libcurl3-dev: A development package linked again gnutls needed)


On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:45:09PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> i saw the bug report, i'm sorry to not have commented the request which
> i find absolutely reasonable. i'll try to figure out if curl may suffer
> from limitations due to the use of gnutls in place of openssl.

i would guess that there aren't any, though that is making the perhaps
naïve assumption that libcurl-dev properly compartmentalizes away the
ssl code from its own api.

> i doubt seriously a new package like libcurl3-gnutls is appropriate,
> but let me know your opinion.

i think that would solve the problem by muting the symptoms.  what happens
when the next free-but-not-quite-gpl-compatible licensed software is
linked against libcurl (or something similar)?

i know i'm repeating myself here, but the real fix is to politely
solicit the upstream author to change or add a clause to their license
that makes such allowances.  that, or change the build options of the
gpl packages that are linking (directly or indirectly) against such
libraries so that they do not.

if you want to switch support for libcurl to gnutls in the meantime,
it would be a very nice thing of you to do, but it neither solves
the problem in the larger scheme of things nor would i consider it an
obligation on your part to do so.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: