On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 09:15:21PM +0200, Nicolas Baradakis said:
Stephen Gran wrote:
The problem with the module rlm_sql_postgresql is the Debian package libpq4 depends on libssl. A user installing freeradius-postgresql also installs libssl through apt-get mechanism.
Oh yes, I understand that - I just am not clear on why this instance of transitive linking is actually a problem. But that's not really an issue for discussion on freeradius-dev, I don't think.
It's an issue for debian-legal. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/11/msg00253.html
Oh yes, I am aware of the arguments, thank you. I'm just not sure I agree with them. As I said, though, I don't really think this has anything to do with freeradius development. If you really want to have the conversation about why I think what about about transitive linking, we can have it via private mail or some list dedicated to tedious legalities. I don't think this is the place for it, though.
When PostgreSQL completes their GnuTLS patch, it could be added as a dpatch in the postgresql source package, so the PostgreSQL client library doesn't depend on libssl anymore, and the freeradius-postgresql package can enter the Debian archive.
That would be nice. That still leaves us with the eap submodules that expect to use openssl directly, though. They are the ones that represent clear problems for binary redistribution, and can only really be solved within the freeradius project (well, or within the openssl community, but as you pointed out, that seems unlikely).
Concerning the eap submodules, I'm all for Alan's idea of an apt repository on freeradius.org. We are already maintaining the files under the debian directory between each releases, therefore there isn't much additional work. While we are at it, we can also provide the latest version of FreeRADIUS for the users running Debian Sarge.
OK, just a quick question, though: is the core freeradius team the sole copyright holders? If so, binary redistribution is no problem, and it seems reasonable. It would also probably be reasonably trivial to just grant an excemption if that was the case, however. If you're not the sole copyright holders, of course, you'll need to ask for permission from the others, in which case we're in roughly the same place, aren't we? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Stephen Gran | Men of quality are not afraid of women | | steve@lobefin.net | for equality. | | http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------