[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The gstreamer third way

David Nielsen wrote:
fre, 12 10 2007 kl. 20:41 +0200, skrev Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski:
On Friday, 12 October 2007 at 21:54, David Nielsen wrote:
This is a QT bug, I suggest the QT people fix it, if need be then KDE
can be compiled without said support till a solution is found. Naturally
it's undesirable to withhold said functionality from these users but
TrollTech knew these was coming and it's a well understood problem which
can only be fixed in a satifactory manner by them.
This problem wouldn't have arised if samba just stayed with GPLv2.
I cannot imagine how you can call this a QT bug.

Samba has (to the best of my knowledge) always been GPLv2+, they
preannounced the intention to go to GPLv3+. TrollTech has had plenty of
time to at least make an announcement on the issue to say they were
working on it.
It's a TrollTech problem, I have no idea how they should solve it, I
just don't see why Fedora should do it for them by shipping an older
version of Samba which we can only be assured is supported for serious
bugs and security fixes for another year. Especially since the worst
case would be that they decide to never become compliant or work around
the issue, since that means we basically fork Samba - something I'm sure
everyone can agree is undesirable. I'm also sure that our users missing
out on the latest Samba work for the coming releases while TrollTech
works on the licensing issue is also undesirable. And naturally it's
undesirable to see KDE users without such support, which goes without
saying - this is a matter of selecting the lesser evil which will go
away the quickest.

It's a hard problem but I think the ball is in TrollTechs court, at
least for a comment on whither or not they are going to solve this
issue. If they are working on it and a solution can be expected in the
near future then I'd agree with holding back on the Samba version is
acceptable but I'm terrified of doing so if we don't even have a promise
that the problem will go away.

I'd much prefer to leave this in the KDE maintainers' courts. The Samba maintainer has made clear his intention to move to a GPLv3 library in F9. The KDE maintainers can decide how best to handle the situation from there.

Their options are:
1) Fork samba. This is what happens with any package which no longer has an upstream but has people within Fedora who care about it sufficiently to deal with it.

2) Convince upstream KDE to fork samba. It would be best if they take the time to make the library not conflict with the distro version of samba (probably by renaming. libsamba-gpl2 was proposed earlier and would work.) but even if they don't we've worked around bad packaging in upstream tarballs before.

3) Remove samba support until the license situation allows linking to libsmbclient again.

4) Port kio-smb to gnome-vfs2 :-)

We can all see drawbacks with each of these options but it's really up to those who are going to do the kde packaging work to decide which of the choices is "right".


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]