Re: apt-https pre-final
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2002, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>
> > OK, apt-https is done, documented, working and everything. It's can
> > authenticate too. It's against 0.5.4, not against CVS.
>
> Please do one against CVS, [...]
OK.
> your diff has all sorts of weirdness in the .sgml documents that looks
> like a mismatched version or something..
Ouh - have you seen that I have patched the sgml stuff as well to document
https?
> The openssl license means you can't use pure GPL on the bits you have
> applied copyright too..
You have to put an "it's OK to link against openssl" into the copyright.
That's all. Please see section in my patch that touches the copyright
file.
> I'm feeling slight amounts of uncertainty about including large swacks of
> ssl-tunnel, especially since I'm sure people will file lots of bugs
> against it :<
Do you have a better idea? I do not want to fork stunnel, since I'm
certain that it's author is a far brighter capacity wrt openssl. And I do
intend to follow stunnel in debian and update those files. And least but
not last, if there are bugs in the stunnel code they can be reported back
upstream and the author can fix them there as well...
*t
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Pospisek
sourcepole - Linux & Open Source Solutions
http://sourcepole.com
Elestastrasse 18, 7310 Bad Ragaz, Switzerland
Tel:+41 (81) 330 77 13, Fax:+41 (81) 330 77 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deity-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: