Re: ITP (really ITrP): bigbrother
On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 02:35:02AM -0700, Seth Cohn wrote:
> With the permission of Stephane Bortzmeyer, the current maintainer,
> I am going to repackage bigbrother (aka Big Brother) with a more current
> version.
>
> The version in potato (and woody) is 1.09c, the current version is 1.4h.
> Doesn't seem like much, but it's a huge difference, with many many many
> changes, at least a good years' worth (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4) . Outstanding
> bugreports exist that are over a year old, and most if not all are due to
> having such a old and broken version packaged. The current package
> doesn't work on correctly on install either (according to one bugreport)
The older versions had a more liberal license. I stopped using big
brother as their license became appropriate of "big brother" ;).
> For those wondering why I'm taking a non-free package, and not working on
> one of the free alternatives: simply, BB works, and is pretty free in
> practice, if not in license, and is very well supported (for free). I plan
> on packaging many truly free things also, but having just installed a
> fresh Debian system for a box at work, and discovering the ancient age of
> bigbrother in the packages, I was aghast.
>
Yes, I was wondering why.
Since, as you say, there are other 'free' packages that provide the same
functionality you might consider putting time into enhancing them in stead,
although IMO the ones I use surpassed 'big brother' some time ago.
Many could use an easier method of configuration, cricket for example.
> It is old packages like this that give Debian a bad name. Personally, I'd
> recommend removing bigbrother from potato, rather than having an old
> broken version floating around on it. One upstream version behind, fine,
> even 2... but to be a year behind and still be in potato doesn't feel
> right to me.
I recommend removing bigbrother from woody.
>
> There aren't any release critical bugs against it, but maybe there should
> be (??). Someone might want to take a long look at other similar packages
> with _long_ standing bugs against them... is it in Debian's best interest
> to ship with long standing but non-critical bugs that have been fixed in
> an upstream version but not updated in Debian (for many reasons)
Please do file appropriate bug reports against them, not "release critical".
Best Wishes
J.Currey
--
It has also reluctantly come to the conclusion, for the same reasons, that a
structural remedy has become imperative: Microsoft as it is presently
organized and led is unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law
or accede to an order amending its conduct.
Reply to: