On Tuesday 13 April 2004 00:39, Chris Cheney wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 01:13:50PM +0200, Dominique Devriese wrote: > > Kevin Krammer writes: > > > Debian has a clear advantage with such problems, the highly > > > appreciated effort to create a fine package granularity enables > > > packagers to build alternative packages (one for feature disabled > > > and one for enabled), > > > > I suppose you're talking about the various "-ssl" packages ? As you > > may have noticed, these are disappearing or have already disappeared > > from Debian. In general, these were always workarounds, and Debian > > never really liked to have them. AFAIK, the reason they were > > necessary is so that not too much stuff should go into > > non-free. > > > > Anyway, IMHO, there's no point in not having ssl support in kdelibs, > > these days, just as there's no point in not having IDN support these > > days, and upstream should just make both libs a hard dependency. > > Actually the problem with openssl is that it is, was, and always will be > GPL incompatible. The only way to cleanly solve the linking issue is to > use gnutls which is LGPL. The openssl issue is currently worked around > due to how kde uses https, but if more things start linking to openssl > it will be bad. It would be much better if KDE were converted to use > gnutls at some time in the future. That comes up regularily on kde-core-devel. I think there were some issues with respect to the difference in test time of both libs and other things. Cheers, Kevin
Attachment:
pgp2hqRAKAcZV.pgp
Description: signature