On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:01:51PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sven Luther writes: > > >On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 07:35:19AM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote: > >>On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 12:00:57AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > >>> Sylvain LE GALL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> > >>> > Hello, > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> > I want to apply this week... Is there anyone interested in my > >>> > application. > >>> > > >>> > I could do two things for this appliance : > >>> > - adopt cameleon > >>> > - package mldonkey ( initscript, manpage, documentation... ) > > > >There are also other ocaml stuff that are not yet packaged, if you are > >interrested. ensemble is one of those that come to mind, but there may > >be others. > > > > Well, ensemble is surely very useful, but i won't probably use it.
It was just an example, it is best you package things you use. > I have other fields of interest. For example, i would like to package > ocamldap. If you are interested Go for it ... > >>> I recall that someone is already working on packaging mldonkey. > >>> Unfortunately, mldonkey *cannot* enter Debian as long as no > >>> change is made to the okey license (QPL) that will make it > >>> GPL compatible (mldonkey is GPL). You need to fix this. > >>> > >> > >>Yes, in fact, i think we have already talk about that. A part of the > >>code was hidden, it is no more. Concerning the QPL licence, i don't see > >>what code you are talking about, i will browse the code tonight. > > > >There were two peoples interrested in this some time ago, check the > >archive list, and there were two discutions about this, but i don't know > >what came of it. Maybe you should ask the two potential packagers and > >ask them about what happened. > > > > That was me and another guy : gosdwin ... I have just send him an email > to ask him if he needs help. Ok, ... > >>> > I know that mldonkey is maybe not a good political solution ( since > >>it > > is a peer to peer application, which is tool for hacker ). > > > >This is no problem, we already package gnutella and maybe other such, > >the licence problem is more serious. > > > > Quoting from mldonkey/COPYING > > This licence is a copy from the GPL licence, with the noticeable difference > that, in Section 3, the "preferred form of the work for making modifications > to it" does not apply to the donkey/donkey.lam file of the distribution. Well, the problem is that not everything they claim will be true. Also, you have to check if it still is free and even GPL compatible. BTW, what is the donkey.lam file ? and in what format is it shipping ? In my (uninformed) opinion, and probably you will get similar response from the debian-legal people, if the file they speak about is not easily modifiable or whatever, it could as well be a binary file, which puts this stuff clearly in the non-free part of debian. > I don't know it could pose a problem. I need to reread GPL and DFSG to be > sure it could be included in main ( if not contrib is a good place ). Best would be to aks for advice on debian-legal. > >>> > If anyone want to be my AM, please contact me. > >>> > >>> You first need an advocate. I don't have a lot of time for > >>> advocacy, but if noone else is available, I'll do it. > > > >I can do it also, but maybe it is better that Jerome does it, i don't > >know, it will depend mostly on with whome you work more about Cameleon > >and other packaging, since the advocate will need to tell the AM (which > >is not someone you choose but a member of the new maintainer team) what > >we think about you, and that is best down if your advocate has been > >working a bit with you before. > > > > Oops my fault : advocate and not AM > > >>Maybe i will begin to package mldonkey and then ask for an advocate ( i > >>already package mtink... i think i know some basis, but i need to be > >>more accurate, especially for packaging ocaml things ). > > > >Maybe someone (me ?) could have a look at your mtink package ? > > > > Yes you could have a look on it. The better way is to get the source > from the debian repository ( apt-get source mtink ). But it is written > in C/Motif. The release is not up to date, since upstream is 0.9.54 and > debian package is 0.9.52. i was working on some patch to handle dockapp > in mtink + some possible bugs. I was already sponsored by Eduard Bloch. > But mtink is just an utility program for me. I won't do heavy work on it. > I'd rather prefer to get in touch with ocaml, which i use daily in various > way ( i am still a student ). Ah, ..., yes, there is no need for us to look at it, since it was already sponsored by someone else, who looked at it. > >>At last a question : where can i find ocaml-packaging policy ? There is > >>file in /usr/share/doc/ocaml* but i am note sure that this is the most > >>up to date document. > > > >Yes, this is the official document (for now) i plan to add something, > >and maybe i should make it available on the web somewhere too, but this > >is it. The parts missing are the bytecode/nativecode split and the > >proposal from stefano. Also there are some problems with virtual > >packages and the autobuilders, but i don't know what these are exactly. > > > >Friendly, > > > >Sven Luther > > > > Well as a maybe futur maintainer, i could help you to maintain this > document. If you want. Well, yes, if you want. One thing which would be nice to have done, is to convert it from plaintext to whatever is used in the debian policy documents, so it becomes easier to incorporate it with the other debian policy documents. The two additions need to be written, and there was some discution about it in the list, Stefano proposed to write the entry about library dependencies, and i proposed to write the entry about bytecode/nativecode executable packages. Friendly, Sven Luther > > Kind regard > Sylvain LE GALL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
