Skip to contentSkip to conversation

bind: bump version to 9.11.0

PATCH New Vicente Olivert Riera 3 participants 6 messages Oct 11, 2016 – Oct 15, 2016

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 bind: bump version to 9.11.0

- With the release of BIND 9.11.0, ISC is changing the open source license for BIND from the ISC license to the Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0). See release notes:
http://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.11.0/RELEASE-NOTES-bind-9.11.0.html

- Explicitly enable/disable zlib support, otherwise the configure script will fail like this:

checking for zlib library... yes
checking for library containing deflate... no
configure: error: found zlib include but not library.

---
 package/bind/bind.hash |  4 ++--
 package/bind/bind.mk   | 11 +++++++++--
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
package/bind/bind.hash +2 -2
index 8acfda5..bc46604 100644
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-# Verified from ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.10.4-P3/bind-9.10.4-P3.tar.gz.sha256.asc
-sha256 a075e5ce89fddccb0e64d1777d59161387dd5151cf4e7d1a93875a487812baef  bind-9.10.4-P3.tar.gz
+# Verified from ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.11.0/bind-9.11.0.tar.gz.sha256.asc
+sha256 6f0b403036e0281b272a0fbdd0dc3417f3050b625cb059c5409432611418058b  bind-9.11.0.tar.gz
package/bind/bind.mk +9 -2
index e6bf204..cda9fed 100644
@@ -4,13 +4,13 @@
 #
 ################################################################################
 
-BIND_VERSION = 9.10.4-P3
+BIND_VERSION = 9.11.0
 BIND_SITE = ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/$(BIND_VERSION)
 # bind does not support parallel builds.
 BIND_MAKE = $(MAKE1)
 BIND_INSTALL_STAGING = YES
 BIND_CONFIG_SCRIPTS = bind9-config isc-config.sh
-BIND_LICENSE = ISC
+BIND_LICENSE = MPLv2.0
 BIND_LICENSE_FILES = COPYRIGHT
 BIND_TARGET_SERVER_SBIN = arpaname ddns-confgen dnssec-checkds dnssec-coverage
 BIND_TARGET_SERVER_SBIN += dnssec-importkey dnssec-keygen dnssec-revoke
@@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ BIND_CONF_OPTS = \
 	--enable-rrl \
 	--enable-filter-aaaa
 
+ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_ZLIB),y)
+BIND_CONF_OPTS += --with-zlib
+BIND_DEPENDENCIES += zlib
+else
+BIND_CONF_OPTS += --without-zlib
+endif
+
 ifeq ($(BR2_PACKAGE_LIBCAP),y)
 BIND_CONF_OPTS += --enable-linux-caps
 BIND_DEPENDENCIES += libcap
Signature · 1 line
2.10.0
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 bind: bump version to 9.11.0

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line

"Vicente" == Vicente Olivert Riera <[email protected]> writes:

- With the release of BIND 9.11.0, ISC is changing the open source license for BIND from the ISC license to the Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0). See release notes:
http://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.11.0/RELEASE-NOTES-bind-9.11.0.html

Quoted 6 lines

- Explicitly enable/disable zlib support, otherwise the configure script will fail like this:

checking for zlib library... yes
checking for library containing deflate... no
configure: error: found zlib include but not library.

Committed, thanks.

Signature · 1 line
Bye, Peter Korsgaard
#2 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 bind: bump version to 9.11.0

Hello,

Quoted 5 lines · Peter Korsgaard
Quoted 4 lines

- With the release of BIND 9.11.0, ISC is changing the open source license for BIND from the ISC license to the Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0). See release notes:
http://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.11.0/RELEASE-NOTES-bind-9.11.0.html

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines

- Explicitly enable/disable zlib support, otherwise the configure script will fail like this:

checking for zlib library... yes
checking for library containing deflate... no
configure: error: found zlib include but not library.

Committed, thanks.

Sorry I forgot to say it on the mailing list, but the license change is a bit weird. Indeed, there is still a COPYRIGHT file which contains the old license text. And this file is the one still referenced by the LICENSE_FILES variable.

Then, there is a new file, called LICENSE, which really contains the MPL 2.0 license text.

So:

1/ The LICENSE_FILES variable is now wrong.

2/ Upstream is very confusing with those two license files, and we
should probably report that to them. It currently makes it very unclear if everything is under MPL2.0 or not.

Best regards,

Thomas

Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
#3 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 bind: bump version to 9.11.0

Hello,

Regards,

Vincent.

Quoted 16 lines · Thomas Petazzoni

Hello,

Quoted 12 lines · Peter Korsgaard
Quoted 11 lines

- With the release of BIND 9.11.0, ISC is changing the open source license for BIND from the ISC license to the Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0). See release notes:
http://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.11.0/RELEASE-NOTES-bind-9.11.0.html

- Explicitly enable/disable zlib support, otherwise the configure script will fail like this:

checking for zlib library... yes
checking for library containing deflate... no
configure: error: found zlib include but not library.

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line

Committed, thanks.

Sorry I forgot to say it on the mailing list, but the license change is a bit weird. Indeed, there is still a COPYRIGHT file which contains the old license text. And this file is the one still referenced by the LICENSE_FILES variable.

that COPYRIGHT file doesn't contain the old license text. It has been updated since 9.10.4-P3 (previous version), and now it contains a text that specifies the license is MPL 2.0:

--------------

$ ~/bind-9.11.0 $ head -n5 COPYRIGHT

Copyright (C) 1996-2016 Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC")

This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
--------------

Isn't that enough?

Regards,

Vincent

Quoted 16 lines

Then, there is a new file, called LICENSE, which really contains the MPL 2.0 license text.

So:

1/ The LICENSE_FILES variable is now wrong.

2/ Upstream is very confusing with those two license files, and we
should probably report that to them. It currently makes it very unclear if everything is under MPL2.0 or not.

Best regards,

Thomas

#4 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 bind: bump version to 9.11.0

Hello,

Quoted 7 lines · Vicente Olivert Riera

that COPYRIGHT file doesn't contain the old license text. It has been updated since 9.10.4-P3 (previous version), and now it contains a text that specifies the license is MPL 2.0:

--------------

$ ~/bind-9.11.0 $ head -n5 COPYRIGHT
Quoted 8 lines

Copyright (C) 1996-2016 Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC")

This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
--------------

Isn't that enough?

Ah, right, I got confused by the string "ISC", which is also the name of a license, but here is the name of the organization.

*However*, if you read this file, you see that parts of bind are not under MPL 2.0, but instead under some other BSD-like licenses, the OpenSSL license, etc. Shouldn't we take these into account as well ?

Thomas

Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
#5 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 bind: bump version to 9.11.0

Hi Thomas,

Quoted 18 lines · Thomas Petazzoni

Hello,

Quoted 14 lines · Vicente Olivert Riera

that COPYRIGHT file doesn't contain the old license text. It has been updated since 9.10.4-P3 (previous version), and now it contains a text that specifies the license is MPL 2.0:

--------------

$ ~/bind-9.11.0 $ head -n5 COPYRIGHT

Copyright (C) 1996-2016 Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC")

This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
--------------

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line

Isn't that enough?

Ah, right, I got confused by the string "ISC", which is also the name of a license, but here is the name of the organization.

*However*, if you read this file, you see that parts of bind are not under MPL 2.0, but instead under some other BSD-like licenses, the OpenSSL license, etc. Shouldn't we take these into account as well ?

True, I'll send a patch to amend that.

Thanks,

Vincent

Quoted 3 lines

Thomas