[OE-core] [PATCH] glib-networking: add PACKAGECONFIG for openssl

[Joshua Watt]

On Sat, May 11, 2019, 2:20 AM Adrian Bunk <bunk at stusta.de> wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 08:17:50PM -0500, Joshua Watt wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2019, 8:04 PM Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 04:54:57PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/10/19 4:00 PM, Andre McCurdy wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:16 PM Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 5/10/19 3:13 PM, akuster808 wrote:
> > > > >>> should we change the default to openssl ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I dont think so. Since newer versions of gnuTLS works okay.
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't one of the goals for OE 2.8 to replace dependencies on
> [L]GPLv3
> > > > > components with non-[L]GPLv3 alternatives so that meta-gplv2 can be
> > > > > deprecated? This would seem to fit that goal exactly.
> > > >
> > > > Is that stated somewhere ? while I like the goal probably I missed
> the
> > > > memo, my suggestion was just to give openssl backend some time to
> mature
> > > > since its relatively new, and maybe give it some soak time
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It wasn't possible to build glib-networking with openssl until very
> > > > > recently but now that it's supported upstream I think we should
> > > > > switch.
> > > > >
> > > > >    https://github.com/GNOME/glib-networking/blob/master/NEWS
> > >
> > > I don't have strong opinion either way.
> > >
> > > I didn't want to change the default, because my only motivation was the
> > > license issue with the newer gnutls, with the PACKAGECONFIG available
> > > it's easy to change the TLS backend and that's all I need.
> > >
> > > Will send v2 if there is some consensus from glib-networking users that
> > > it should be changed and someone provides me the reasoning for the
> > > commit message.
> > >
> >
> > FWIW, moving away from GPLv3 and/or meta-gplv2 has been discussed in the
> > 2.8 planning meetings:
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CNEKA4d0eT6-e0hnS2pwi7xdZ5_t6smpZO2HbaJGXbU/edit?usp=drivesdk
> >
> > Not that it needs to be done right now. It is nice to at least have the
> > option.
>
> It doesn't read as if "replace dependencies on [L]GPLv3 components" or
> "moving away from GPLv3" would charcterize it correctly.
>
> It says to create a *configuration* for the small subset of Yocto users
> who do not want to have GPLv3 code on their target.
>
> For these users it is clear that they want to use openssl if they use
> glib-networking,[1] and that they want to stick with busybox applets
> instead of bash and all the GNU utilities.
>

Right, I was a little too strong there; I didn't mean to imply that anyone
is proposing to completely remove GPLv3, just provide alternatives that
aren't meta-gplv2.


> For everyone else nothing has to change.
>
> cu
> Adrian
>
> [1] Which BTW creates its own licence headaches due to OpenSSL having
>     a GPL-incompatible licence.
>
> --
>
>        "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
>         of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
>        "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
>                                        Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20190511/146f4738/attachment.html>