packaging-committee

#546 Review/clarity on minor fork of nghttp2; b64.c
Closed: Fixed Opened by clockwerx.

Closed: Fixed
Reopen Issue

Context:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198498

Basically the reviewer is keen to double check modifications to 2x LGPL libraries are suitable to include as standalone forks from the originals.

It would help if you answered the std. questions:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Standard_questions

...but in general I'd say that just saying "Well I did some patches and then bundled" is not going to go well for an exception. I'll add it to the meeting.

We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-06-25/fpc.2015-06-25-16.01.txt):

  • 546 Review/clarity on minor fork of nghttp2; b64.c (geppetto,


    16:49:45)
  • LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/546 (geppetto, 16:49:45)
  • LINK:
    http://git.libwebsockets.org/cgi-bin/cgit/libwebsockets/tree/lib/ssl-http2.c#n111
    (geppetto, 16:58:04)
  • ACTION: Bundling of base64/random SSL setup bits. (+1:5, 0:1, -1:0)
    (geppetto, 17:19:48)
  • ACTION: Bundling of "custom" sha1 implementation. (+1:3, 0:1, -1:2)
    … just link to the openssl functions, as you have build options for
    it. (geppetto, 17:20:04)

Metadata Update from @james:
- Issue assigned to james
Metadata
None
None
None
None
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.