releasing LGPL version of opencdk?

[Simon Josefsson]

(Quoting liberally to preserve mailing list archive context..)

Timo Schulz <twoaday at gmx.net> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Timo, do you want opencdk to continue be the name for your "complete"
>> package with all code?  If so, we have to rename the LGPLv2 version to
>> libminiopencdk, libopencdk-lite, libopencdk-gnutls, libgnutls-opencdk,
>> libgnutls-pgp or something similar (suggestions welcome).
>
> For the next 1-2 years it is very unlikely that I will find the time
> to maintain or adjust the library. In other words, to work on important
> issues and to fix all the existing problems....
>
>> Another option is to make the LGPLv2 code be the new "complete" version
>> of OpenCDK (and call it version 0.7.0).
>
> ...therefore I would say that it is the best idea to rename the
> LGPL library to libopencdk-gnutls.
>
>> between the complete opencdk and the stripped down copy.  I also do not
>> know if any package except GnuTLS really uses OpenCDK.
>
> Not any popular package I'm aware of.
>
>
>> I'd be happy to take the current lib/opencdk/ code in GnuTLS, write
>> autoconf magic for it, and release it as opencdk-lite.  That seems to be
>> the simplest way I can make things happen right now.
>
> I agree. Plus, the GnuTLS team can adjust the library so it better
> fits the requirements for TLS and remove other code which is not
> required.
>
>
> I really wish I would have more time, because large parts of the library
> either needs to be revamped or rewritten. With the libopencdk-gnutls
> decision we can at least assure, that the openpgp support for GnuTLS
> is up-to-date and maintained.

Ok, great.  I'll do a release of it and make gnutls depend on it.

Regarding naming, on second thought, I think it would be better to avoid
having 'gnutls' in the name of the LGPL package since it would be
confusing if any non-gnutls projects to link with it.
'libopencdk-lite'?

/Simon