On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:26:47 -0500, micah anderson <micah@riseup.net> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:38:28 -0800, Andrew Pollock <apollock@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 06:22:19PM -0500, micah wrote: > > > > > > Hey Andrew, any progress on this? > > > > It's all ready to go, I'm just waiting for upstream to make a release that > > addresses > > > > E: libpam-barada: possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl > > > > and then it'll be good to go. > > Excellent! Are you interested in some testing? I'd be interested to give > it a try myself, as this is how I stumbled on the ITP, because I was > wanting it. > > I wonder if barada could be linked against gnutls instead? Looking at it a little closer I actually don't see why barada should link to openssl at all, it doesn't do any transport-layer security and is just using the crypto primitives from openssl: openssl/rand.h and openssl/hmac.h -- pretty straightforward crypto primitives that are provided by gcrypt. Although it is not the same API (and the header files aren't named the same), they are conceptually equivalent, so I think that the right thing to do in this case would be to use gcrypt instead of openssl... Switching to that shouldn't be that hard actually, I think even easier than working out the boring licensing issues. micah
Attachment:
pgpFh3OxL7Bp9.pgp
Description: PGP signature