Request for rewiew: mbuffer-20050730

Paul Howarth paul at city-fan.org
Thu Aug 4 17:31:26 UTC 2005


On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 15:09 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> This is not that much a reply to myself, but a reaction to the
> discussion about whether to link against openssl and with respect to
> Warren's hint about possible license implications. So I decided it would
> be best to use mhash available through Fedora Extras if the user wants
> to have the md5 hash functionality in mbuffer. This makes it necessary
> to prevent mbuffer to detect openssl if present on the build system
> during configure. Special thanks to Paul for pointing that out, and how
> to do so. openssl will not be used, hence the license question Warren
> pointed to is no issue then. To not link mbuffer against a library in
> /usr/lib (libmhash.so.2 => /usr/lib/libmhash.so.2 (0x0071b000)) the md5
> feature is disabled by default, but can be chosen as a rebuild option.
> The target behind that is to keep mbuffer usable even without a /usr
> partition being mounted (i.e. emergency case).
> 
> New .spec and src.rpm (release -3):
> 
> http://www.uni-x.org/review/mbuffer.spec
> http://www.uni-x.org/review/mbuffer-20050730-3.src.rpm

Given that:

(a) I'm happy with this package now,
(b) By default it will not link against either openssl or libmhash (and
"rpmbuild --with md5hash" results in linking against LGPLed libmhash),
and
(c) No further comments have come in about this in the last 4 hours or
so...

Approved.

Paul.
-- 
Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org>




More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list