On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 05:59:07PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Martin Quinson wrote: > > The Requests for Comments (RFCs) form a series of notes, started in 1969, > > about the Internet (originally the ARPANET). The notes discuss many aspects > > of computer communication, focusing on networking protocols, procedures, > > programs, and concepts but also including meeting notes, opinion, and > > sometimes humor. See RFC2026 (in package rfc-bcp) for more information. > > . > > This package contains a tool called rfc which can be used to search the > > RFCs about a given port number, a given protocol, arbitrary text or even > > perl regexps. If you have the rfc-* packages installed, it will search > > there, but if not, it will connect to the internet to retrieve the RFC > > index and work on it. > > Excellent. A much nicer solution than including giant masses of non-free > documentation in debian.
Yes. I'm currently playing with the idea of concentrating my efforts about rfc to this script, and let the existing doc-rfc packages as they are. > Have you considered adding some form of caching facility, for > offline use? doc-rfc could be considered a kind of solution to this, but > I'd rather just be able to cache the few RFCs I regularly refer to, and not > the entire set of them. Current version do cache the rfc index (400k over RTC hurts), but afaik, not the RFC themselves. I guess it should go somewhere under /var, with a group of users allowed to write them in. Using the RFC when they are installed from the giant packages is not an issue. > > Please note that this description is not correct until my new version of > > the rfc package gets uploaded to the archive. But I don't exepect the > > rfc-tool to hit the archive before the data RFC packages. > > At the moment, the whole doc-rfc situation seems quite up-in-the-air. > Since the maintainer is active, it is not appropriate for you to be > taking it over, but it's unfortunate that the maintainer ignored your > NMU and may be ignoring your suggestions for the package. Maybe it would > be better to not block this excellent idea for a package on the whole > doc-rfc mess, and make it be able to use doc-rfc for now, if that's > possible. Anyway, the bugs I wanted to get fixed did get fixed (beside the description clarification, but I keep optimistic). The sad side is that I did a lot of stuff for nothing, but who knows, I may also convice Kai to rethink his package split, and cleanup its build process so that it does not produce tons of warnings... > If you need a sponsor for this, I will probably do so, contingent on > looking at the package. Thanks. > > Likewise, the licence for now is: > > ############################################################################# > > # Feel free to redistribute as long as you keep this header in tact. > > # http://www.dewn.com/rfc/ > > # Please let me know if you find this useful, I'd love to hear about it! > > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ############################################################################# > > I contacted upstream to clarify it. > > That's not free. It does not allow modification (of the program; it's > fine that the "header" containing the copyright be unmodifiable), and it > does not allow distribution for a fee. If you can't get this clarified, > this does not seem at first glance to be an especially hard program to > rewrite. Thanks for the reminder. Jfs did also explain it to me, but now, I do have contacted upstream to ask for a relicencing... Thanks a lot, Mt. -- Il y a 10 catégories de personnes : celles qui comprennent le binaire, et les autres. --- Blague d'informaticiens
