On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 11:24:51AM -0600, Andy Zbikowski (Zibby) wrote: > The copyright file has not been updated to include the patch. (Both > rdesktop and the patch are released under the GPL) > > What should actually be done? Credit both in the copyright and give all > the relevant information? Leave the copyright as is and keep the credits > for the patch elsewhere? Other?
If the patch is a major addition, then you should mention it in the copyright file. > Question two: To include the patch, it became part of the diff file > generated by dpkg-buildpackage. This seemed to be the easiest and most > correct way of applying the patch to the package as the > rdesktop_1.0.0.orig.tar.gz should be the same as the tarball downloaded > from rdesktop.org. Is this the way source patching should be handled? That's okay, yes. > Question Three: rdesktop uses (and includes as part of the source > distribution) arith.h & conf.h (Copyright (c) Martin Nicolay, 22.Nov. 1988 > ) as well as md5.h, md5_locl.h, rc4.h, rc4_locl.h, sha.h, and sha_locl.h > from Eric Young's SSL implementation to implement the encryption > algorithms used in the RDP protocol. Should documentation and license info > for the crypto stuff be included in the deb? (if so how and where) Yes, document them in the copyright file. > The rdesktop author only included this note: > > The files in this directory implement the encryption algorithms used in > the RDP protocol, and are subject to their respective licenses. > RC4 may also be subject to patent restrictions in some countries. > > And finally, with the inclusion of the crypto stuff, should the resulting > package be put into the X11 section in non-US, or can it remain with the > main distribution. Looks like non-US/main to me. > Lastly are related to the ITP notice above, the package has been in > preparation for 46 days. I e-mailed Sam Johnston who issued the wnpp bug > about a week ago asking him how it was going, if he was still planning on > creating this package, etc. I still haven't received a reply. I would like > to see this package make it into Debian as I find it very useful, but I > don't want to step on anyone's toes either. As stated above, I created the > package the learn Debian packaging and for use on my personal machines. If > Sam is going to build a package and submit it fine by me, but 46 days does > seem excessive for building a single binary package with minimal > documentation. If he doesn't answer soon, get a sponsor to upload it for you. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
