> 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. > 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. > 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. I don't see your GMP patch in the unified patches... perhaps that would be a good place for it? - samj > > 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 > > > > > >
