DoWe have developed a module that we intend to include in our rpm package. For licensing reasons we will not be distributing freeradius itself. Instead the freeradius rpm will be a pre-requisite. It would be nice if the binary packages provided enough files to build a module. Library files are there, but other needed build and compile files are not. I assume that this is not in the cards in any future release... Our concern is the build process. As it is now we have the install the tarball, build it, then build our module. Doable yes. Can you see a better way? Bill
Bill Schoolfield <bill@billmax.com> wrote:
DoWe have developed a module that we intend to include in our rpm package. For licensing reasons we will not be distributing freeradius itself. Instead the freeradius rpm will be a pre-requisite.
It would be nice if the binary packages provided enough files to build a module. Library files are there, but other needed build and compile files are not. I assume that this is not in the cards in any future release...
Our concern is the build process. As it is now we have the install the tarball, build it, then build our module. Doable yes.
Can you see a better way?
Bill
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
What kind of "licensing" reasons? -- Sent from my phone with, please excuse brevity and typos
Bill Schoolfield wrote:
DoWe have developed a module that we intend to include in our rpm package. For licensing reasons we will not be distributing freeradius itself. Instead the freeradius rpm will be a pre-requisite.
If you have a module which depends on FreeRADIUS, your choices are: a) GPL the module b) don't redistribute the module That's pretty much what the GPL says. (Modulo 3 pages of legalese) Alan DeKok.
We can't distribute FreeRadius w/o GPL-ing our entire package. Anyway I don't think that's not particularly pertinent (I should not have mentioned it). On a client's host I think I'm leaning towards installing the freeradius rpm, then during our install process, "layer in" the needed files (to build and install our module). That way we don't have to build out a entire radius instance on our build machines. Any thought to including the necessary src files so folks can build their modules from a rpm distro? Bill On 7/25/2013 7:28 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
Bill Schoolfield wrote:
DoWe have developed a module that we intend to include in our rpm package. For licensing reasons we will not be distributing freeradius itself. Instead the freeradius rpm will be a pre-requisite.
If you have a module which depends on FreeRADIUS, your choices are:
a) GPL the module
b) don't redistribute the module
That's pretty much what the GPL says. (Modulo 3 pages of legalese)
Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
On 25 Jul 2013, at 14:14, Bill Schoolfield <bill@billmax.com> wrote:
We can't distribute FreeRadius w/o GPL-ing our entire package. Anyway I don't think that's not particularly pertinent (I should not have mentioned it).
On a client's host I think I'm leaning towards installing the freeradius rpm, then during our install process, "layer in" the needed files (to build and install our module). That way we don't have to build out a entire radius instance on our build machines.
Any thought to including the necessary src files so folks can build their modules from a rpm distro?
Ok what src files do you actually need, the debian package at least installs enough of the FreeRADIUS headers to be able to build modules. I believe John Dennis was talking about creating a freeradius-devel package which does the same (for 3.0). You don't need any more than that surely? Or is there some weird legal thing i'm missing about linking against the FreeRADIUS libraries? -Arran Arran Cudbard-Bell <a.cudbardb@freeradius.org> FreeRADIUS Development Team
On 7/25/2013 8:48 AM, Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote:
On 25 Jul 2013, at 14:14, Bill Schoolfield <bill@billmax.com> wrote:
We can't distribute FreeRadius w/o GPL-ing our entire package. Anyway I don't think that's not particularly pertinent (I should not have mentioned it).
On a client's host I think I'm leaning towards installing the freeradius rpm, then during our install process, "layer in" the needed files (to build and install our module). That way we don't have to build out a entire radius instance on our build machines.
Any thought to including the necessary src files so folks can build their modules from a rpm distro?
Ok what src files do you actually need, the debian package at least installs enough of the FreeRADIUS headers to be able to build modules. I believe John Dennis was talking about creating a freeradius-devel package which does the same (for 3.0).
I could be wrong but I didn't see headers, make files, etc. in the freeradius centos rpm.
You don't need any more than that surely? Or is there some weird legal thing i'm missing about linking against the FreeRADIUS libraries?
Again, Sorry I brought up the licensing issue. But the history here is we have steered clear of distributing GPL software. There is some room for interpretation in the areas of combined works... Looking at the license, it looks like some of our reservations are no longer applicable. Anyway, what I was really asking is there a better way to build our module without having to start from the src tar ball? The one idea I had was to compile the module during our install process using the rpm installed freeradius. Does that help explain my original question?
-Arran
Arran Cudbard-Bell <a.cudbardb@freeradius.org> FreeRADIUS Development Team
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
I could be wrong but I didn't see headers, make files, etc. in the freeradius centos rpm.
Correct, because, as John Dennis from RedHat and others have pointed out, earlier versions of FreeRADIUS were not multilib-safe to provide that on CentOS 6 (which is based on RedHat Enterprise Linux, but you know that already). However, John is changing this with FreeRADIUS 3.0 (there's a pretty freeradius-devel package that will be available, which will include the necessary bits). So you're going to have to wait for FR 3.0 and its associated packages for RHEL/CentOS7 or Fedora 20. I'm following John's work on this closely because I will require FR 3.0 on CentOS 6.4 myself.
The one idea I had was to compile the module during our install process using the rpm installed freeradius.
Once freeradius-devel is available, you probably can get your install process to install it, do your build, and after successful compilation, uninstall freeradius-devel again. You'll just have to be patient. If you don't want to wait, you don't have a choice and the tarball it is. Stefan -- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail. Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd. Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message. Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom
Alright. Thanks all for your input. Bill On 7/25/2013 10:07 AM, stefan.paetow@diamond.ac.uk wrote:
I could be wrong but I didn't see headers, make files, etc. in the freeradius centos rpm.
Correct, because, as John Dennis from RedHat and others have pointed out, earlier versions of FreeRADIUS were not multilib-safe to provide that on CentOS 6 (which is based on RedHat Enterprise Linux, but you know that already).
However, John is changing this with FreeRADIUS 3.0 (there's a pretty freeradius-devel package that will be available, which will include the necessary bits).
So you're going to have to wait for FR 3.0 and its associated packages for RHEL/CentOS7 or Fedora 20. I'm following John's work on this closely because I will require FR 3.0 on CentOS 6.4 myself.
The one idea I had was to compile the module during our install process using the rpm installed freeradius.
Once freeradius-devel is available, you probably can get your install process to install it, do your build, and after successful compilation, uninstall freeradius-devel again.
You'll just have to be patient. If you don't want to wait, you don't have a choice and the tarball it is.
Stefan
Bill Schoolfield wrote:
We can't distribute FreeRadius w/o GPL-ing our entire package.
I'm not sure why. If you just have a plug-in module, GPL that module, and nothing else. It works for the rlm_securid module. Why wouldn't it work here?
On a client's host I think I'm leaning towards installing the freeradius rpm, then during our install process, "layer in" the needed files (to build and install our module). That way we don't have to build out a entire radius instance on our build machines.
That doesn't really change anything. Alan DeKok.
On Jul 25, 2013 8:45 AM, "Bill Schoolfield" <bill@billmax.com> wrote:
We can't distribute FreeRadius w/o GPL-ing our entire package. Anyway I
don't think that's not particularly pertinent (I should not have mentioned it).
On a client's host I think I'm leaning towards installing the freeradius
rpm, then during our install process, "layer in" the needed files (to build and install our module). That way we don't have to build out a entire radius instance on our build machines.
Any thought to including the necessary src files so folks can build their
modules from a rpm distro?
That will depend of your distribution, usually they will provide a SRPM or spec file that you can use and modify to generate an RPM with your build needs
Bill
On 7/25/2013 7:28 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
Bill Schoolfield wrote:
DoWe have developed a module that we intend to include in our rpm package. For licensing reasons we will not be distributing freeradius itself. Instead the freeradius rpm will be a pre-requisite.
If you have a module which depends on FreeRADIUS, your choices are:
a) GPL the module
b) don't redistribute the module
That's pretty much what the GPL says. (Modulo 3 pages of legalese)
Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See
http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/devel.html
On 07/25/2013 08:28 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
Bill Schoolfield wrote:
DoWe have developed a module that we intend to include in our rpm package. For licensing reasons we will not be distributing freeradius itself. Instead the freeradius rpm will be a pre-requisite.
If you have a module which depends on FreeRADIUS, your choices are:
a) GPL the module
b) don't redistribute the module
That's pretty much what the GPL says. (Modulo 3 pages of legalese)
I'll admit I get confused when it comes to licensing issues, but isn't the library they would be linking against LGPL? That's the license in the FreeRADIUS library section. And I thought LGPL gave you the right to link against LGPL libraries without providing sources. -- John
On 07/24/2013 10:33 PM, Bill Schoolfield wrote:
DoWe have developed a module that we intend to include in our rpm package. For licensing reasons we will not be distributing freeradius itself. Instead the freeradius rpm will be a pre-requisite.
It would be nice if the binary packages provided enough files to build a module. Library files are there, but other needed build and compile files are not. I assume that this is not in the cards in any future release...
Our concern is the build process. As it is now we have the install the tarball, build it, then build our module. Doable yes.
Can you see a better way?
Which rpms for which distribution? Being specific makes it much easier to answer questions. If you're referring to Red Hat freeradius rpm's then yes you're correct, there is no devel package with the 2.x series because the header files are not multilib safe. I believe Arran has just recently corrected this for the upcoming 3.0 release, if so then the 3.0 rpm's will include a devel package. Would you please explain the licensing concerns you have? -- John
participants (7)
-
Alan DeKok -
Arran Cudbard-Bell -
Bill Schoolfield -
John Dennis -
Manuel Argüelles -
Phil Mayers -
stefan.paetow＠diamond.ac.uk