From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vagrant Cascadian Subject: bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 11:14:02 -0800 Message-ID: <87k1h9i3gl.fsf@ponder> References: <87tvgkiurn.fsf@ponder> <87zhq8f2zz.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftrzuxmh.fsf@ponder> <87o96m8f09.fsf@ponder> <871s3his1i.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:60200) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2KxS-0007jz-PM for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 14:15:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2KxS-0003vL-2j for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 14:15:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51367) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h2KxR-0003vG-W0 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 14:15:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1h2KxR-0001Os-P8 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 14:15:01 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <871s3his1i.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 34717@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Vagrant Cascadian skribis: >> I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to add more comments >> regarding the GPL/Openssl incompatibilities; e.g. if someone were to >> propose adding one of the u-boot targets that requires it, they might >> just go ahead and re-add the openssl input... > > There=E2=80=99s always a risk. I guess we=E2=80=99ll have to be careful = when doing > reviews. Sure. I was thinking maybe putting a comment in the native-inputs where "openssl" was removed, but wasn't sure what the conventions might be. > In addition, we can add a =E2=80=98lint=E2=80=99 checker for this case, W= DYT? Does the lint checker have a way to identify a confidence level, e.g. *maybe* it has this issue vs. *certainly*? Is there a way to override the lint checker issues for known false positives? Otherwise, it might just be annoying noise for packagers where it isn't appropriate. live well, vagrant --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRlgHNhO/zFx+LkXUXcUY/If5cWqgUCXIK+/AAKCRDcUY/If5cW quhvAQDhH6LGasQ+bEPiayw0lRVOy+wQ1G9tonnTYZf7Slg8WwD/YHtuLplr6HTf Q13lEIYqEm/OZi4pan+meRF64kwAxAs= =zy4Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--