Re: Dropping indirect dependencies from libgnutls-config --libs
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Dropping indirect dependencies from libgnutls-config --libs
- From: Andreas Metzler <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 09:12:50 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20060629173856.GA3733@downhill.aus.cc> <20060629183222.GA20370@glandium.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <E1FwM97-0001Co-Ma@midonly.downhill.aus.cc> <20060630230210.GA31380@www.lobefin.net>
Stephen Gran <email@example.com> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Andreas Metzler said:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> [making foo-config a wrapper around pkg-config]
>> > If you started using pkg-config you'd have introduced a
>> > build dependancy on a GPL'd program in a BSD licenced package, not
>> > exactly a good idea.
>> That is something I hadn't thought about, gnutls is LGPL. Thanks.
> I'm not sure how that's a real problem. Can you explain?
I think it would not be nice if funky-license packageX suddenly had a
indirect build-depency on GPL software, simply because it is using the
standard autoconf test.
I agree that imho this is no real license issue ("oops, we suddenly would
not be able to distribute x and y") but it just looks strange if
linking suddenly requires installation of external GPL software.
> It's not like
> you're proposing to link against libpkgconfig, even if such a thing
> existed. You already provide .la files, right?
I ship .la files /allowing/ using of libtool. Switching the *standard*
test is different imho.
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal
vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute
tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects,
howsoever undertaken. (c) Jasper Ffforde