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

Re: Serious problem with geoip - databases could not be build from source



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Patrick Matthäi schrieb:
> Hello lists and maxmind,
> 
> (please CC me in your replys, I am not subscribed to debian-legal@ and
> debian-devel@, thanks).

I am now, so ignore it. :)

.....

> But I have got a serious problem with it:
> 1) upstream delivers the databases only as binary .dat files
> 2) csv versions of the free databases are available
> 3) upstream isn't cooperative to tell us how to build the binary files
> from the csv (source) files

Here are the results:

- - With the great help from Kalle Olavi Niemitalo it is now possible to
build a good working GeoIP.dat from source, nice work!
- - Upstream does not provide (anymore?) csv files for the IPv6 database,
I asked them to do so, then we are possible also able to to provide this
database in the Debian packages.
- - I added several scripts which are useable for cron.d:
geoliteasnum.sh: the ASNUM edition
geolitecityupdate.sh: The city database
geolitecountryv4.sh: The classic Country database (IPv4)
geolitecountryv6.sh: The IPv6 country database

> 
> I tried to fix this issue together with upstream, but his decision was,
> that we should remove the database(s) from the tarball and let them
> download at install time, this would be a candidate for contrib.
> 
> If Boris Zentner ACKs with it I will publish the mailing result of us.

Since I opened up this discussion, they didn't replied to any of my mails.

> 
> I disagree with it, because of the reverse dependencies.
> GeoIP is also not a candidate for main without any database, because the
> whole library isn't usefull in any manner then.

Now it is safe.


> Currently I see only three options:
> 1) upstream decides to open his build system

Maybe they will decide to do so in the future, I hope it.

> 2) we move it to contrib with all consequences
> 3) we leave it as it is
> 
> 2) would be a disaster in my and many other eyes, 3) would be an
> exception of the DFSG, 1) is in my opinion the only acceptable solution
> for this problem.
> 
> I hope you could help me. :)

Thanks for all your hints and work!

- --
/*
Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards,
 Patrick Matthäi
 GNU/Linux Debian Developer

E-Mail: pmatthaei@debian.org
        patrick@linux-dev.org

Comment:
Always if we think we are right,
we were maybe wrong.
*/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqWv2wACgkQ2XA5inpabMf5QACfbwFrZGKVUgoQGsAfMvMngCb1
OrIAnAuLMqqq+QhEv57wlm9EKC70yL1m
=bSR/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: