Debian package for freeradius_postgresql module
Hello All,
We have a project which is built on postgresql and freeradius on debian system. I
have installed postgresql-8.1 on the Debian system, and lately freeradius-1.1.0
also. Things seems ok, but when we started to test, we found that the postgresql
module of freeradius is missing in the debian distribution!
After desperately checking, we were told that debian doesn't distribute the binary
module of freeradius for postgresql because of the incompatible license of these two
apps! However we can build the debian pkg from the source ourself if we need. So
we did it. But this problem: we got so many...so many warnings during the process
of building the debian packages, tons of the warnings! So although we have the
packages now, we don't know if we can use them with so many so many warnings??!
I want to post some of the warnings here for your advice. Please tell me with such
kind of warnings, will the built packages still usable?? Further more, I am afraid
it is because our system is not purly dev system, so that we got those warnings...
so, if any one of you could possibly help us to get a v1.1.0 postgresql module of
freeradius, I would be so much grateful!! Or, if you can help us to get the newest
v1.1.1 freeradius package set fro debian (include the postgresql module), that will
be great also! I deeply hope to get help from you...
We specifically need this module bacause the codes in postgresql to work with
freeradius have been built, can't imagine all work will be trashed...:(
Please see the warning samples:
radius.c: In function 'make_secret':
radius.c:167: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'librad_MD5Update'
differ in signedness
radius.c: In function 'make_passwd':
radius.c:205: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'librad_MD5Update'
differ in signedness
radius.c: In function 'make_tunnel_passwd':
radius.c:294: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'librad_MD5Update'
differ in signedness
rlm_passwd.c: In function 'build_hash_table':
rlm_passwd.c:218: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'hash' differ in
signedness
rlm_passwd.c:232: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'hash' differ in
signedness
rlm_passwd.c: In function 'get_pw_nam':
rlm_passwd.c:299: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'hash' differ in
signedness
rlm_passwd.c: In function 'passwd_authorize':
rlm_passwd.c:536: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c: In function 'cisco_vsa_hack':
rlm_preprocess.c:126: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of
'__builtin_strchr' differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c:144: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c: In function 'rad_mangle':
rlm_preprocess.c:203: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of
'__builtin_strchr' differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c:206: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strcpy'
differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c: In function 'huntgroup_access':
rlm_preprocess.c:375: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strNcpy'
differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c:376: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strlen'
differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c: In function 'add_nas_attr':
rlm_preprocess.c:404: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of
'ip_hostname' differ in signedness
rlm_preprocess.c:425: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of
'ip_hostname' differ in signedness
rlm_radutmp.c: In function 'radutmp_checksimul':
rlm_radutmp.c:658: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
rlm_realm.c: In function 'check_for_realm':
rlm_realm.c:209: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strcpy' differ
in signedness
rlm_sql.c: In function 'sql_groupcmp':
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strlen' differ in
signedness
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of '__builtin_strcmp'
differ in signedness
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of '__builtin_strcmp'
differ in signedness
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'strlen' differ in
signedness
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of '__builtin_strcmp'
differ in signedness
rlm_sql.c:564: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of '__builtin_strcmp'
differ in signedness
rlm_sql.c: In function 'rlm_sql_authorize':
rlm_sql.c:824: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
rlm_sql.c: In function 'rlm_sql_checksimul':
rlm_sql.c:1227: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
...
Please advise me if these warnings are serious??
Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!!
Regrads,
leo
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:27:36AM -0700, lmyho wrote:
After desperately checking, we were told that debian doesn't distribute the binary
module of freeradius for postgresql because of the incompatible license of these two
apps! However we can build the debian pkg from the source ourself if we need. So
Sounds terribly unlikely, PostgreSQLs licence doesn't conflict with any
use anywhere. Can you provide a reference?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
Show quoted text
Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
After desperately checking, we were told that debian doesn't distribute the
binary
module of freeradius for postgresql because of the incompatible license of these
two
apps! However we can build the debian pkg from the source ourself if we need.
So
Sounds terribly unlikely, PostgreSQLs licence doesn't conflict with any
use anywhere. Can you provide a reference?
I wish things are not like this too! so I won't have to go through so much trouble!
But that's what happened:-(
This is the ref was given:
The old / original BSD license is not compatible.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Anyway to change this?? So debian users can easily use postgresql and freeradius
together...
Thanks!!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:27:36AM -0700, lmyho wrote:
After desperately checking, we were told that debian doesn't distribute the binary
module of freeradius for postgresql because of the incompatible license of these two
apps! However we can build the debian pkg from the source ourself if we need. SoSounds terribly unlikely, PostgreSQLs licence doesn't conflict with any
use anywhere. Can you provide a reference?
This looks like part of the debate:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/11/msg00254.html
I dont know if this applies to openssl though...
- Tyler
lmyho wrote:
After desperately checking, we were told that debian doesn't distribute the
binary
module of freeradius for postgresql because of the incompatible license of these
two
apps! However we can build the debian pkg from the source ourself if we need.
So
Sounds terribly unlikely, PostgreSQLs licence doesn't conflict with any
use anywhere. Can you provide a reference?I wish things are not like this too! so I won't have to go through so much trouble!
But that's what happened:-(This is the ref was given:
The old / original BSD license is not compatible.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicensesAnyway to change this?? So debian users can easily use postgresql and freeradius
together...
Changing the postgres license isn't going to happen - it has been
debated many many many times in the past (check the archives).
Those warnings come from freeradius, not postgres - so best ask on their
list whether they are serious or not.
--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/
Chris <dmagick@gmail.com> writes:
This is the ref was given:
The old / original BSD license is not compatible.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicensesAnyway to change this?? So debian users can easily use postgresql and freeradius
together...
Changing the postgres license isn't going to happen - it has been
debated many many many times in the past (check the archives).
The PG license is *not* the "old" (advertising-clause) BSD license, but
the new one. What I gathered from the other link that was posted is
that Debian's license concern has nothing to do with the Postgres
license, but rather that they think freeradius and openssl have
incompatible licenses. So it's those two projects that you need to talk
to about this. We are just bystanders.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:39:44PM -0700, lmyho wrote:
Sounds terribly unlikely, PostgreSQLs licence doesn't conflict with any
use anywhere. Can you provide a reference?I wish things are not like this too! so I won't have to go through so much trouble!
But that's what happened:-(This is the ref was given:
The old / original BSD license is not compatible.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
It's talking about BSD with advertising clause which doesn't apply to
postgresql which has the modified BSD licence. I mean, Debian ships
postgresql fine. Like I said, who said it isn't possible?
Have a ncie day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
Show quoted text
Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:40:03PM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
This looks like part of the debate:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/11/msg00254.html
I dont know if this applies to openssl though...
Oh right, they're claiming that they can't distribute freeradius using
postgresql because postgresql links to OpenSSL. freeradius is GPL which
makes for an incompatabilty. Not something PostgreSQL is responsible
for, given Debian could compile without SSL and the problem would be
solved.
About the only thing we could do is support GnuTLS, but that's about
it.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
Show quoted text
Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
lmyho <lm_yho@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh right, they're claiming that they can't distribute freeradius using
postgresql because postgresql links to OpenSSL. freeradius is GPL which
makes for an incompatabilty. Not something PostgreSQL is responsible
for, given Debian could compile without SSL and the problem would be
solved.
OK, I'm kind of confused about how the legal red tape works here.
Debian packages all sorts of GPL code, and both openssl and postgres are
released under more liberal licenses. About the only legal issue I could see
is the legalities surrounding the export of openssl, but I thought debian
had already found it's own way around that.
About the only thing we could do is support GnuTLS, but that's about
it.
I'm in love with debian, so if that's what it takes to get a package
people find useful in there, I'm all for it.
It's just a little complicated for a common user like me. But if it can be
solved by just going a bit harder way, like to make a debian package by
our own, that's ok too, as long as we don't have to switch the os to make
the two work together.
You may not even need to do that;
The second search result there includes two sets of
/etc/apt/sources.list lines that both provide freeradius-postgresql.
Cheers,
Tyler
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 20060407201115.66122.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Tyler MacDonald <tyler@yi.org> writes:
OK, I'm kind of confused about how the legal red tape works here.
Debian packages all sorts of GPL code, and both openssl and postgres are
released under more liberal licenses. About the only legal issue I could see
is the legalities surrounding the export of openssl, but I thought debian
had already found it's own way around that.
[ looks in openssl tarball... ] It looks like the openssl license is
essentially old-style BSD (ie, with advertising clause). If Debian is
being anal about refusing to ship old-BSD code linked to GPL code,
there's going to be a whole lot of stuff that doesn't support SSL on
Debian, not only Postgres. Or are they selectively enforcing this
policy against PG?
(FWIW, Red Hat doesn't seem to be worried about this ... you could
always migrate to Fedora ;-))
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tyler MacDonald <tyler@yi.org> writes:
OK, I'm kind of confused about how the legal red tape works here.
Debian packages all sorts of GPL code, and both openssl and postgres are
released under more liberal licenses. About the only legal issue I could see
is the legalities surrounding the export of openssl, but I thought debian
had already found it's own way around that.[ looks in openssl tarball... ] It looks like the openssl license is
essentially old-style BSD (ie, with advertising clause). If Debian is
being anal about refusing to ship old-BSD code linked to GPL code,
there's going to be a whole lot of stuff that doesn't support SSL on
Debian, not only Postgres. Or are they selectively enforcing this
policy against PG?
I don't think so. I got curious and looked at what's on my Ubuntu
system: Courier IMAP is GPL with an additional clause that explicitly
allows linking with OpenSSL; Postfix has an Apache-ish license; Exim
is GPL and also explicitly allows linking with OpenSSL; Cyrus IMAP is
BSDish; Apache is non-GPL... I can't think offhand of anything that
is GPL and links with OpenSSL without an explicit clause permitting
same.
-Doug
Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org> writes:
I don't think so. I got curious and looked at what's on my Ubuntu
system: Courier IMAP is GPL with an additional clause that explicitly
allows linking with OpenSSL; Postfix has an Apache-ish license; Exim
is GPL and also explicitly allows linking with OpenSSL; Cyrus IMAP is
BSDish; Apache is non-GPL... I can't think offhand of anything that
is GPL and links with OpenSSL without an explicit clause permitting
same.
Hm. So can we lobby freeradius to tweak their license similarly?
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org> writes:
I don't think so. I got curious and looked at what's on my Ubuntu
system: Courier IMAP is GPL with an additional clause that explicitly
allows linking with OpenSSL; Postfix has an Apache-ish license; Exim
is GPL and also explicitly allows linking with OpenSSL; Cyrus IMAP is
BSDish; Apache is non-GPL... I can't think offhand of anything that
is GPL and links with OpenSSL without an explicit clause permitting
same.Hm. So can we lobby freeradius to tweak their license similarly?
I thought from Douglas' message, it appeared BSD packages didn't need
such a clause...
Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> writes:
I thought from Douglas' message, it appeared BSD packages didn't need
such a clause...
GPL partisans feel that BSD-with-advertising-clause is not compatible
with the GPL. I think the sticking point here is that openssl is using
an advertising clause.
regards, tom lane
Greetings FreeRadius people,
This discussion started on the postgresql's "pgsql-general" mailing
list. The problem here is that the freeradius-postgresql package needs to
link against libpgsql, which means that it may be indirectly linked against
openssl. There is a conflict between OpenSSL's BSD license and the GPL which
means that it's not legal to distribute a copy of GPL code that is linked in
this way. It appears that several other GPL apps have added a special clause
to their license that allows them to be linked against OpenSSL.
Could this be done for freeradius/freeradius-postgresql as well?
This could pave the way towards enhanced freeradius support in Debian,
specifically the addition of freeradius-postgresql to Debian's mainline.
For your reference, here is the start of the thread on the
pgsql-general list that got us to this point:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-04/msg00247.php
Thanks,
Tyler
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Show quoted text
I don't think so. I got curious and looked at what's on my Ubuntu
system: Courier IMAP is GPL with an additional clause that explicitly
allows linking with OpenSSL; Postfix has an Apache-ish license; Exim
is GPL and also explicitly allows linking with OpenSSL; Cyrus IMAP is
BSDish; Apache is non-GPL... I can't think offhand of anything that
is GPL and links with OpenSSL without an explicit clause permitting
same.Hm. So can we lobby freeradius to tweak their license similarly?
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:16, Tom Lane wrote:
Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> writes:
I thought from Douglas' message, it appeared BSD packages didn't need
such a clause...GPL partisans feel that BSD-with-advertising-clause is not compatible
with the GPL. I think the sticking point here is that openssl is using
an advertising clause.
But the way Douglas' message read, it was only GPL packages that should
be affected, and we're not GPL. Or did I or Douglas misunderstand the
situation?
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 17:24, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Greetings FreeRadius people,
This discussion started on the postgresql's "pgsql-general" mailing
list. The problem here is that the freeradius-postgresql package needs to
link against libpgsql, which means that it may be indirectly linked against
openssl. There is a conflict between OpenSSL's BSD license and the GPL which
means that it's not legal to distribute a copy of GPL code that is linked in
this way. It appears that several other GPL apps have added a special clause
to their license that allows them to be linked against OpenSSL.Could this be done for freeradius/freeradius-postgresql as well?
This could pave the way towards enhanced freeradius support in Debian,
specifically the addition of freeradius-postgresql to Debian's mainline.For your reference, here is the start of the thread on the
pgsql-general list that got us to this point:http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-04/msg00247.php
Please note that PostgreSQL is NOT GPL, but BSD. Just sayin'
Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> wrote:
GPL partisans feel that BSD-with-advertising-clause is not compatible
with the GPL. I think the sticking point here is that openssl is using
an advertising clause.But the way Douglas' message read, it was only GPL packages that should
be affected, and we're not GPL. Or did I or Douglas misunderstand the
situation?
It's freeradius that's GPL. Then we break GPL rules by importing
OpenSSL. Guilt by association. :)
- Tyler
Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org> wrote:
It appears that several other GPL apps have added a special clause
to their license that allows them to be linked against OpenSSL.Could this be done for freeradius/freeradius-postgresql as well?
I have no objection to that.
Debian should at least be able to distribute their version of source
packages, that will build binaries against the distributed binary packages.Alan DeKok.
Thanks Alan!!! Can we look forward to this clause in the next
version of FreeRadius? Is the next version due to come out anytime soon?
Thanks,
Tyler
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 20060407222628.7334116E1B@mail.nitros9.org
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com> wrote:
But the way Douglas' message read, it was only GPL packages that should
be affected, and we're not GPL. Or did I or Douglas misunderstand the
situation?It's freeradius that's GPL. Then we break GPL rules by importing
OpenSSL. Guilt by association. :)
IANAL, but this seems pretty problematic an interpretation of the GPL.
By this interpretation, coding a connector against UNIX ODBC would be
OK, but the user would be forbidden to use ODBC drivers that link
against OpenSSL. I cannot therefore imagine a circumstance where the
parent GPL application could be considered a dirivative work.
Indeed indirect linking is a pretty common GPL dodge, given NVidia's
approach to drivers.
What really seems to be happening here is that the Debian community
seems to be taking a stand which has little to do with the wording of
the GPL and more of an issue of "we don't like what NVidia is doing wrt
Linux drivers, so we are going to implement a policy that prevents it."
We are, unfortunately, caught in the crossfire.
My own opinion is this: The Debian crowd are often technical enough
they can build whatever they want from source. Debian is a niche
distribution and not something we should spend too much time worrying
about whether our software can be indirectly linked with GPL apps on
their site.
BTW, does this also mean that no GNU Readline is available in the Debian
versions of psql? Or am I missing something?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting
