Re: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: Add sqlcipher.

[Andy Patterson <ajpatter@uwaterloo.ca>]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:49:50 -0400
Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:42:44AM +0300, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 03:30:13PM -0400, Andy Patterson wrote:  
> > > +       ;; tests are un-maintained in this fork
> > > +       #:tests? #f))
> > > +    (home-page "https://www.zetetic.net/sqlcipher/")
> > > +    (synopsis
> > > +     "Library providing transparent encryption of SQLite
> > > database files")
> > > +    (description "SQLCipher is an SQLite extension that provides
> > > transparent +256-bit AES encryption of database files.  Pages are
> > > encrypted before being +written to disk and are decrypted when
> > > read back.  It’s well suited for +protecting embedded application
> > > databases and for mobile development.")
> > > +    (license license:bsd-3)))
> > > -- 
> > > 2.10.0
> > >   
> > 
> > I'm a little confused how much of this is actually upstream sqlite
> > and how much is their own code. The commit messages look like
> > they're continually merging in sqlite. Also, many of the files in
> > the src folder I checked are public-domain and not bsd-3 licensed.  
> 
> I'm also wondering what the relationship is between this project and
> SQLite. The comment about disabling tests describes SQLCipher as a
> fork, but the SQLCipher home page describe it as an extension.

I'd say it's a fork based on the source structure and commit history as
Efraim mentioned. I think the upstream describes it as an extension
because it adds extra behaviour on top of SQLite while maintaining API
compatibility, rather than changing its fundamental behaviour. I could
alter the description (I've currently just used the upstream's wording)
in order to reflect the fact that this isn't an SQLite "loadable
extension". Do you have any reccomendations along those lines?

Thanks,

--
Andy