On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 15:21 +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Dnia 24-05-2006, śro o godzinie 10:00 +0200, Bernardo Innocenti
> napisał(a):
> > Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> >
> > > It will be good remove multiple implementation of:
> > > - term toolkit (lang, libtermcap and ncurses). Use only ncurses will fit
> > > all what is neccessary,. Patching all program for use libncursesw will
> > > allow remove distribute libncurses library (now are distributed
> > > libncurses and libncursesw) and move libncurses to kind
> > > compat-ncurses package.
> >
> > I also want to see libtermcap die, but then libncurses and its
> > terminfo database would have to move from /usr to / to support
> > applications such as vim.
> >
> > Maybe all the exotic terminals could remain in /usr/share/terminfo
> > while the root partition would only have minimal support for the
> > most common ones (linux, vt100, xterm, etc).
>
> Best will be generate ncurses with --with-termlib and move only libterm
> to /%{_lib}. This library can bring some most offen used teminals
> definition and all other shoud be moved for example to compat-terminfo
> package.
>
> > > - multiple digests operation (openssl, gnutls, nss .. some programs are
> > > now linked with *all* avalaible implemntations 8-0 ),
> >
> > Yeah, I agree. OpenSSL seems to be the most comprehensive, but
> > its licence stinks and this is why gnutls was written in the first
> > place. Now that Mozilla adopted the triple MPL/GPL/LGPL license,
> > there's no reason to keep gnutls any more.
> >
> > OpenSSL also tends to break its ABI very often and this is very
> > annoying when upgrading to a new version of Fedora. I'd ditch
> > that one too if wasn't used by so many packages.
>
> I can't understand this situation. It is sick ..
> Seems now strict license compliance is used only in libsoup and all
> other cases current using gnutls for example in cups can be switched
> between openssl and gnutls.
> All this cases (current using gnutls) this very small subset of all
> using SSL in distro. If in all other cases seems noone cares why now
> some "for make this betetter" someone (temporary ?) decide for "make
> this wors" ? Next ideology ?
> For me preparing distribution it dominion of practise .. not ideology :>
Are you claiming that its ok to violate licenses as long as the other
end doesnt have lawyers? If its a license violation, it should be fixed.
Period.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
