[Pkg-cracklib-commits] r113 - in cracklib2/trunk/debian: . patches
Jan Dittberner
jandd at alioth.debian.org
Thu Nov 19 06:52:53 UTC 2009
Author: jandd
Date: 2009-11-19 06:52:52 +0000 (Thu, 19 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 113
Removed:
cracklib2/trunk/debian/patches/01-use-src-path-for-python.patch
Modified:
cracklib2/trunk/debian/changelog
cracklib2/trunk/debian/copyright
cracklib2/trunk/debian/patches/series
Log:
update to upstream 2.8.15
Modified: cracklib2/trunk/debian/changelog
===================================================================
--- cracklib2/trunk/debian/changelog 2009-11-18 22:41:47 UTC (rev 112)
+++ cracklib2/trunk/debian/changelog 2009-11-19 06:52:52 UTC (rev 113)
@@ -1,3 +1,14 @@
+cracklib2 (2.8.15-1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * New upstream release
+ - license changed to LGPL
+ - integrate patch 01-use-src-path-for-python.patch from 2.8.14-1
+ * debian/copyright: updated licensing information
+ * remove debian/patches/01-usr-src-path-for-python.patch included in
+ upstream release, update debian/patches/series
+
+ -- Jan Dittberner <jandd at debian.org> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:52:09 +0100
+
cracklib2 (2.8.14-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream release
Modified: cracklib2/trunk/debian/copyright
===================================================================
--- cracklib2/trunk/debian/copyright 2009-11-18 22:41:47 UTC (rev 112)
+++ cracklib2/trunk/debian/copyright 2009-11-19 06:52:52 UTC (rev 113)
@@ -12,20 +12,22 @@
Modifications: Added cronjob, configuration file, and man pages.
-This program is free software; you may redistribute it and/or modify
-it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
-published by the Free Software Foundation.
+This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as
+published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the
+License, or (at your option) any later version.
-This is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but without
-any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability or
-fitness for a particular purpose. See the GNU General Public License
-for more details.
+This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
+Lesser General Public License for more details.
-A copy of the GNU General Public License version 2 is available as
-/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 in the Debian GNU/Linux distribution
-or on the World Wide Web at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. You
-can also obtain it by writing to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
-51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
+A copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License 2.1 is available as
+/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2.1 in the Debian GNU/Linux
+distribution or on the World Wide Web at
+http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html. You can also
+obtain it by writing to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51
+Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
Copyright information:
@@ -36,12 +38,289 @@
This approval was carried out in email discussions in 2005, and has
been reconfirmed as of 2007-10-01 with the following email from Alec
-Muffett.
+Muffett. Cracklib's license was changed from the GPL to the LGPL after
+consensus of all previous developers in October 2008, effective with
+release 2.8.15 released on 2009-11-19. See the email discussion below
+for both license changes.
-------------------------------------
+-----------
+EFFECTIVE OCT 2008, LICENSE IS BEING CHANGED TO LGPL-2.1 (though not reflected
+in released code until Nov 2009 - slow release cycle...)
+-----------
+
+Discussion thread from mailing list archive, with approval from everyone actively
+involved or holding original licensing rights included.
+
+
+[Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+From: Mike Frysinger <vapier at ge...> - 2007-10-02 01:16
+
+Attachments: Message as HTML
+looks like 2.8.11 is out and marked as "GPL-2" ... releasing libraries unde=
+r=20
+GPL-2 is not desirable at all ... this is why the LGPL-2.1 exists
+=2Dmike
+
+
+
+ Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ From: Neulinger, Nathan <nneul at um...> - 2007-10-02 01:18
+ I understand that, and you're welcome to bring it up with Alec directly
+ and see if he wants to relicense his code as LGPL... but at this point,
+ it was enough to just get it consistent and documented as to what it was
+ released under. This wasn't actually a license change, just a
+ clarification of the licensing that was already in place.=20
+
+ -- Nathan
+ =20
+ ------------------------------------------------------------
+ Nathan Neulinger EMail: nneul at um...
+ University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-6679
+ UMR Information Technology Fax: (573) 341-4216
+
+ > -----Original Message-----
+ > From: cracklib-devel-bounces at li...
+ > [mailto:cracklib-devel-bounces at li...] On Behalf Of
+ > Mike Frysinger
+ > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:15 PM
+ > To: cracklib-devel at li...
+ > Subject: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ >=20
+ > looks like 2.8.11 is out and marked as "GPL-2" ... releasing
+ > libraries under
+ > GPL-2 is not desirable at all ... this is why the LGPL-2.1 exists
+ > -mike
+
+
+ Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ From: Mike Frysinger <vapier at ge...> - 2007-10-02 01:33
+
+ Attachments: Message as HTML
+ On Monday 01 October 2007, Neulinger, Nathan wrote:
+ > I understand that, and you're welcome to bring it up with Alec directly
+ > and see if he wants to relicense his code as LGPL... but at this point,
+ > it was enough to just get it consistent and documented as to what it was
+ > released under. This wasn't actually a license change, just a
+ > clarification of the licensing that was already in place.
+
+ the original license (before moving to sourceforge -- aka, 2.7) was not=20
+ GPL-2 ... it was a modified artistic license ... i didnt notice the license=
+ =20
+ change until it was mentioned in the latest notes.
+
+ unlike the old license, GPL-2 prevents people from using cracklib unless th=
+ eir=20
+ applications are also GPL-2 which imo is just wrong. it isnt the place of =
+ a=20
+ library to dictact to application writes what license they should be using.=
+ =20
+ thus LGPL-2.1 enters to fill this void.
+ =2Dmike
+
+
+ Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ From: Neulinger, Nathan <nneul at um...> - 2007-10-02 01:46
+ Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
+ maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
+ decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
+ much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small bit of
+ additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine by me.
+
+ -- Nathan
+ =20
+ ------------------------------------------------------------
+ Nathan Neulinger EMail: nneul at um...
+ University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-6679
+ UMR Information Technology Fax: (573) 341-4216
+
+ > -----Original Message-----
+ > From: cracklib-devel-bounces at li...
+ > [mailto:cracklib-devel-bounces at li...] On Behalf Of
+ > Mike Frysinger
+ > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:33 PM
+ > To: Neulinger, Nathan
+ > Cc: cracklib-devel at li...; Alec Muffett
+ > Subject: Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ >=20
+ > On Monday 01 October 2007, Neulinger, Nathan wrote:
+ > > I understand that, and you're welcome to bring it up with Alec
+ > directly
+ > > and see if he wants to relicense his code as LGPL... but at this
+ > point,
+ > > it was enough to just get it consistent and documented as to what
+ > it was
+ > > released under. This wasn't actually a license change, just a
+ > > clarification of the licensing that was already in place.
+ >=20
+ > the original license (before moving to sourceforge -- aka, 2.7) was
+ > not
+ > GPL-2 ... it was a modified artistic license ... i didnt notice the
+ > license
+ > change until it was mentioned in the latest notes.
+ >=20
+ > unlike the old license, GPL-2 prevents people from using cracklib
+ > unless their
+ > applications are also GPL-2 which imo is just wrong. it isnt the
+ > place of a
+ > library to dictact to application writes what license they should
+ > be using.
+ > thus LGPL-2.1 enters to fill this void.
+ > -mike
+
+
+ Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ From: Alec Muffett <alecm at cr...> - 2007-10-02 08:57
+ > Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
+ > maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
+ > decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
+ > much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small
+ > bit of
+ > additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine
+ > by me.
+
+ I am sympathetic. Guys, what do you reckon?
+
+ What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
+ linked with any code, not just GPL...
+
+ -a
+
+
+ Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ From: Devin Reade <gdr at gn...> - 2007-10-02 15:04
+ I would like to see it under LGPL as well. I think it is in everyone's
+ best interests to have as secure systems as possible, and I think tainting
+ it via GPL will just make it less likely that the library gets used, and
+ will not usually cause companies/developers to GPL the dependent code
+ (where it is not already GPL).
+
+ I like GPL, I use it when I can, but I don't think that it's the correct
+ license in this situation.
+
+ Devin
+ --
+ If it's sinful, it's more fun.
+
+
+ Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ From: Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin at re...> - 2008-01-28 16:32
+ On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:57:31AM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote:
+ > > Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
+ > > maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
+ > > decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
+ > > much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small
+ > > bit of
+ > > additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine
+ > > by me.
+ >
+ > I am sympathetic. Guys, what do you reckon?
+ >
+ > What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
+ > linked with any code, not just GPL...
+
+ My apologies for not chiming in in anything resembling a reasonable
+ timeframe.
+
+ I'd also suggest the LGPL, for the reason you noted above. Alternately,
+ GPLv2 with the option of using the library under a later version of the
+ GPL would permit applications which were released under version 3 of the
+ GPL to use the library, too, which would be sufficient for the packages
+ which are included in Fedora. FWIW, I'd personally lean toward LGPL.
+
+ In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.
+
+ Cheers,
+
+ Nalin
+
+
+ Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ From: Mike Frysinger <vapier at ge...> - 2008-10-05 21:27
+
+ Attachments: Message as HTML
+ On Monday 28 January 2008, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote:
+ > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:57:31AM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote:
+ > > > Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
+ > > > maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
+ > > > decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
+ > > > much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small
+ > > > bit of
+ > > > additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine
+ > > > by me.
+ > >
+ > > I am sympathetic. Guys, what do you reckon?
+ > >
+ > > What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
+ > > linked with any code, not just GPL...
+ >
+ > My apologies for not chiming in in anything resembling a reasonable
+ > timeframe.
+ >
+ > I'd also suggest the LGPL, for the reason you noted above. Alternately,
+ > GPLv2 with the option of using the library under a later version of the
+ > GPL would permit applications which were released under version 3 of the
+ > GPL to use the library, too, which would be sufficient for the packages
+ > which are included in Fedora. FWIW, I'd personally lean toward LGPL.
+ >
+ > In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.
+
+ looks like everyone is OK with LGPL-2.1 (GNU Lesser license), so can we make
+ the change now ?
+ -mike
+
+
+ Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ From: Alec Muffett <alecm at cr...> - 2008-10-05 23:18
+ >> In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.
+ >
+ > looks like everyone is OK with LGPL-2.1 (GNU Lesser license), so can we make
+ > the change now ?
+
+ yes. go for it. thanks++
+
+ -a
+
+
+ Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
+ From: Mike Frysinger <vapier at ge...> - 2008-10-25 22:34
+
+ Attachments: Message as HTML
+ On Sunday 05 October 2008, Alec Muffett wrote:
+ > >> In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.
+ > >
+ > > looks like everyone is OK with LGPL-2.1 (GNU Lesser license), so can we
+ > > make the change now ?
+ >
+ > yes. go for it. thanks++
+
+ Nathan Neulinger is the only one who can actually make said change ...
+ -mike
+
+
+
+-----------
+BELOW IS ORIGINAL LICENSING DISCUSSION RE CHANGING TO GPL from Artistic.
+-----------
+
+CrackLib was originally licensed with a variant of the Artistic license. In the
+interests of wider acceptance and more modern licensing, it was switched with
+the original author's blessing to GPL v2.
+
+This approval was carried out in email discussions in 2005, and has been reconfirmed
+as of 2007-10-01 with the following email from Alec Muffett.
+
+The below email references nneul at umr.edu address, as that is the address
+that was used at the time. For any future emails regarding this, please
+use nneul at neulinger.org.
+
+
+-------------------------------------
+
+
From alecm at crypticide.com Mon Oct 1 12:26:03 2007
Received: from umr-exproto2.cc.umr.edu ([131.151.0.192]) by UMR-CMAIL1.umr.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:26:03 -0500
@@ -98,5 +377,3 @@
Happy now? :-)
-a
-
-
Deleted: cracklib2/trunk/debian/patches/01-use-src-path-for-python.patch
===================================================================
--- cracklib2/trunk/debian/patches/01-use-src-path-for-python.patch 2009-11-18 22:41:47 UTC (rev 112)
+++ cracklib2/trunk/debian/patches/01-use-src-path-for-python.patch 2009-11-19 06:52:52 UTC (rev 113)
@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-Author: Jan Dittberner <jandd at debian.org>
-Description: use source path when building in a directory outside the
- source directory
---- a/python/Makefile.am
-+++ b/python/Makefile.am
-@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
- if BUILD_PYTHON
- python_PYTHON = cracklib.py
- pyexec_LTLIBRARIES = _cracklibmodule.la
--AM_CFLAGS = -I$(top_builddir)/lib
-+AM_CFLAGS = -I$(top_srcdir)/lib
- _cracklibmodule_la_LDFLAGS = -module -avoid-version $(top_builddir)/lib/libcrack.la
- DEFS += '-DDEFAULT_CRACKLIB_DICT="$(DEFAULT_CRACKLIB_DICT)"'
- DEFS += '-DPYTHON_H="python at PYTHON_VERSION@/Python.h"'
Modified: cracklib2/trunk/debian/patches/series
===================================================================
--- cracklib2/trunk/debian/patches/series 2009-11-18 22:41:47 UTC (rev 112)
+++ cracklib2/trunk/debian/patches/series 2009-11-19 06:52:52 UTC (rev 113)
@@ -1,2 +1 @@
03-packer-dont-print-skipping-line.patch
-01-use-src-path-for-python.patch
More information about the Pkg-cracklib-commits
mailing list