[Pkg-iscsi-maintainers] open-iscsi vs. open-isns vs. openssl licensing issues

[Christian Seiler]

Hello again,

On 07/26/2016 11:07 AM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> On 07/26/2016 10:53 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-07-25 at 21:08 +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
>>> I was just working on updating open-iscsi to the newest upstream git
>>> snapshot. During an initial test build, lintian gave me
>>
>> Thanks. This will be good because I just noticed that Mike has cleaned-up isns
>> from open-iscsi repo.
> 
> Yes, that's kind of why I packaged open-isns in the first place. ;-)
> 
>>> From what I can tell, the simplest solution would probably be:
>>
>>>  - update open-isns to create a new library libisns-nocrypto.so.0
>>>    that doesn't link against -lcrypto
>>>    (there's a configure flag in open-isns to build that, so one
>>>    could easily build the library twice when building open-isns,
>>>    once regularily with -lcrypto, once without; I'd simply put it
>>>    in the same package libisns0 for simplicity)
>>
>>>  - locally patch open-iscsi to build against -lisns-nocrypto
>>>    instead of -lisns -lcrypto
>>
>>> Before I go and do that I'd like to ask you if you agree with
>>> that solution? (While the change itself is not complicated, it
>>> is not just some packaging change or some porting fix that I'd
>>> simply do without asking, but rather some more fundamental change
>>> I'd like a second opinion on.)
>>
>>
>> This is good. In the past we had disabled ssl in isns, when it was in the open-
>> iscsi repo. But this is a much cleaner approach.
> 
> Ah good. I'll upload a new open-isns version (0.96-3) with
> this change soon,

I've uploaded 0.96-3 with this change to sid, but there's a small
catch: lintian now warns package-name-doesnt-match-sonames for
the udeb. The normal package is fine, because it contains both
the regular libisns.so.0 and libisns-nocrypto.so.0, but the udeb
now only contains libisns-crypto.so.0, because we only need the
udeb for open-iscsi, and it would be a waste of space to include
the other library.

We'd need to go through binNEW again if we rename the udeb, and
I think we should do that at some point (before Stretch), but
I'd rather first get everything iSNS/iSCSI-related ready and
tested before doing these kind of cosmetic things. (Especially
since I don't know if other things might come up.) So I've left
the warning as-is without an override for now.

Regards,
Christian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-iscsi-maintainers/attachments/20160726/fec3b1c0/attachment.sig>