libbitcoin: 2.11.0 -> 3.4.0 #32904
libbitcoin: 2.11.0 -> 3.4.0 #32904
Conversation
asymmetric
force-pushed
the
asymmetric/libbitcoin
branch
2 times, most recently
from
21fa021 to
c47dda0
Compare
| @@ -34,8 +34,6 @@ in stdenv.mkDerivation { | |||
| platforms = platforms.linux ++ platforms.darwin; | |||
| maintainers = with maintainers; [ chris-martin ]; | |||
|
|
|||
| # https://wiki.unsystem.net/en/index.php/Libbitcoin/License | |||
| # AGPL with an additional clause | |||
| license = licenses.agpl3; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The link is obsolete but the comment is not: the project claims to be licensed under "AGPL with a lesser clause" (where "lesser clause" must be the additional clause of LGPL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't really understand. Is it AGPL or LGPL? What is the additional clause exactly?
I also couldn't find any difference between their license and the AGPL, although admittedly I didn't look very hard.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Meaning, you can link it dynamically without disclosing your source code or licensing under the same license, but if you link it in statically, you should use the same license (AGPL with lesser clause).
If it were licensed under GPL you could make private changes and as long as you don't distribute them in any form (source or binary) you could just not give them back. AGPL makes network use equivalent to redistribution, i.e. any software under this license should be licensed under the same license to all users that interface with this library on any network.
asymmetric
changed the title
|
@orivej Do you think I should include other dependent packages in this PR, such as |
asymmetric
force-pushed
the
asymmetric/libbitcoin
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0ead9fd to
43ff8c0
Compare
|
This depends on the reviewer; I'd prefer if you included both of those here. |
|
|
||
| nativeBuildInputs = [ autoreconfHook pkgconfig ]; | ||
| buildInputs = [ libbitcoin secp256k1 ]; | ||
| propagatedBuildInputs = [ zeromq ]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because otherwise when compiling libbitcoin-client I get:
checking for libbitcoin-protocol >= 3.4.0... no
configure: error: Package requirements (libbitcoin-protocol >= 3.4.0) were not met:
Package 'libzmq', required by 'libbitcoin-protocol', not found
Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you
installed software in a non-standard prefix.
Alternatively, you may set the environment variables bitcoin_protocol_CFLAGS
and bitcoin_protocol_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config.
See the pkg-config man page for more details.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I could add a zeromq parameter at the beginning of the libbitcoin-client definition, but it seems like zeromq is a direct dependency of libbitcoin-protocol instead, so I thought this makes more sense.
asymmetric
force-pushed
the
asymmetric/libbitcoin
branch
3 times, most recently
from
a9aa917 to
a1eab78
Compare
|
Is this still WIP or do you consider it ready? |
|
Still working on it. |
asymmetric
force-pushed
the
asymmetric/libbitcoin
branch
from
a1eab78 to
c3f5259
Compare
asymmetric
force-pushed
the
asymmetric/libbitcoin
branch
from
c3f5259 to
abc3e45
Compare
asymmetric
changed the title
|
Done. Not sure if we should run tests though. The ones for the |
Motivation for this change
Things done
build-use-sandboxinnix.confon non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"./result/bin/)Not sure what happens to all other libraries that depend on this. Do they get rebuilt against this new version?