sofia-sip packaging considerations

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 09:56:49AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Friday 16 June 2006 00:24, Mark Purcell wrote:
> > On Friday 16 June 2006 05:43, Kai.Vehmanen at nokia.com wrote:
> > > Hello Mark and others,
> >
> > Hi Kai,  Welcome to the list :-)
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > >Also I wonder if we need some sort of upstream OpenSSL
> > > >exception, such as
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSSL_exception as sofia-sip
> > > >links with SSL?
> > >
> > > Yes, we can take a closer look at this if needed. Hmm, we are
> > > using LGPL, not GPL, does this problem apply to us?
> >
> > I know CUPS for one is licenced under LGPL and links with openssl and their
> > upstream have provided the exception:
> > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/c/cupsys/cupsys_1.2.1-2/cup
> >sys.copyright
> >
> > > These references seem to indicate that LGPL+openssl would be ok:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/04/msg00024.html
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2002/07/msg00154.html
> >
> > 2002 is a long way back for precedent on debian-legal. Can anyone comment
> > on the contemporary view from debian-legal over linking LGPL & OpenSSL
> > licences.
> 
> It seems to be fine to link LGPL code with OpenSSL, as suggested at:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00289.html
> 
> > > But let me know if there is something we should do.
> >
> > It might be safer to get the exemption from upstream anyway, provided you
> > are in a position to grant it..
> 
> Agreed. Kai, propbably it is a good idea to provide such an OpenSSL exception 
> in your COPYRIGHTS file with your next release, e.g. 'that you explicitely 
> allow linking your LGPL code with the OpenSSL library.'

[BTW: anybody looked at gnu-tls?]

> 
> Also reimplementing libsofia-sip-ua/ipt/rc4.c and libsofia-sip-ua/su/getopt.c 
> is probably a good idea, as suggested at:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00290.html
> 
> Here goes a little doxygen question, for sofia-sip upstream: do you consider 
> having separately generated documentation for libsofia-sip-ua/docs/ and 
> libsofia-sip-ua-glib/docs/ in your next release, since I have arranged two 
> -doc package for these, but we can easily fallback to one of course. I think 
> separation is a more fine grained approach though, since we can have more 
> than -glib bindings in the future.

Why two -doc packages? Most people won't install the docs anyway. Those
that do, don't worry about the extra disk space.

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen      sip:tzafrir at local.xorcom.com
icq#16849755       iax:tzafrir at local.xorcom.com
+972-50-7952406           
tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com  http://www.xorcom.com