On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 10:24:29AM +1000, Sam Johnston wrote: > > Hmm, would he have a problem with a patched version, or just with 1.0.0? > > Matt assures me that the patched version breaks quite a few things > (although he didn't specify what). He said it will take a few solid days > for him to get it to where he wants it for a 1.1. I know he's busy though > with uni/sysadminning/samba/etc. so I offered to find some 'sponsorship' > (even if that means paying him myself :) ). My last discussion with him > was about a month ago.
well, in any case, if it's made clear in the package description that it is not the canonical version, and bugs should be reported to debian, not to upstream, it should be fine to upload a patched version. We don't want him to have to deal with bugs that aren't his fault. > > I think a patched version ought to be fine. The "unified" series from > > http://bibl4.oru.se/projects/rdesktop/ is pretty stable, and even works with > > w2k server. > > It shouldn't break versioning, as long as it's in the form 1.0.0-whatever. > > So we can upload the 1.0.0 release, follow it up with 1.0.0-up19.5.10 or > similar and then with 1.1.0 when Matt gets around to it? And apt will > track the upgrades (ie 1.0.0->1.0.0-up19.5.10->1.1.0)? I'd want to > be fairly sure that's the case first. Sounds good to me. yep. that's how it works: % dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.0 lt 1.0.0-pl19-5-10 && echo true || echo false true % dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.0-pl19-5-10 lt 1.1.0 && echo true || echo false true > > I haven't really been following the debate about crypto export, so I don't > > know what the us/non-us situation would be. > > I suspect we'll have to put it in non-us for now, but who know's what will > come of current discussions about relaxed export laws et al. Yep. another member of the rdesktop list suggested taking out the rest of the crypto code and using libssl, but it would still have to go into non-us, as long as it depends on something from there. > I don't see your GMP patch in the unified patches... perhaps that would be > a good place for it? yes, Peter Bystrom said he'd add it pretty soon. -brad > > > On Sat, 5 May 2001, Bradley Bell wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, are you still working on packaging rdesktop? I noticed that, though > > > > it's GPL, it contains a few files with a non-free license > > > > (crypto/arith.c > > > > crypto/arith.h, crypto/conf.h). If you're interested, I've got a patch > > > > to > > > > get rid of them, so rdesktop could go into main. I've also got the > > > > whole > > > > thing debianized, if you want to take a look. I'll have it all > > > > uploaded to > > > > http://people.debian.org/~btb/src/rdesktop/ pretty soon. > > > > > > > > -brad > > > > > > > > > >
