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

Re: Bacula and OpenSSL

* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:22:06PM +0200, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> > We do not believe that OpenSSL qualifies as a System Library in Debian.
> > The System Library definition is meant to be read narrowly, including
> > only code that accompanies genuinely fundamental components of the
> > system.

Wow is that confused.

> OpenSSL certainly "accompanies" genuinely fundamental components of
> the system; it's status in Debian is that it's as "fundamental" as apt,
> and significantly more fundamental than any windowing system, which is
> explicitly listed as an example of a "fundamental component" in the GPLv3.

Agreed, and with the rest of Anthony's analysis.  It may not have been
true a few releases ago but things change and it's definitely
fundamental in etch and will be included in all Debian releases and
installations in the foreseeable future.  It has to be explicitly 
*removed* from even a minimal installation and doing so has some
serious implications.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: