Re: ITP (really ITrP): bigbrother
J Currey wrote:
>The older versions had a more liberal license. I stopped using big
> brother as their license became appropriate of "big brother" ;).
Incorrect. The license was nearly identical. Go check out the package
if you wish, it contains the old license.
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.
I've looked at the other software out there, and came back to BB not just
because of the ease of use and amazing support, but because the development
on the package is quite active. Why are people working on non-free
software instead of the free alternative? I think it's because it's not
only supported by the authors, but well supported by the authors. In order
to maintain that level of support (and make some money), the authors
decided that a controlled license was the way to go, even though the source
is open. Big Sister (and other monitors) have a ways to catch up to BB,
and Big Sister for one is a 'homework' project for the author (according to
the website).
I recommend removing bigbrother from woody.
Huh? It's in non-free already. the ITP should fix the problems with a new
version. Why would you want to remove it?
From Potato, I understand. Even if I put a new package up today, it's too
late to change the potato version, which is obsolete by a few versions.
> 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".
Sorry, my mistatement. What I meant was:
1) bigbrother seems to have at least one bug report that says it's broken
on install. This seems ripe for a release critical bug. Stephane is away,
and it's still technically his package, or else I'd file it myself.
2) Other packages with very outdated versions, where the upstream has
fixed the problems, and the maintainer hasn't kept up, should be relooked
at. Maybe a nearly orphaned status is needed? (i.e. Maintainer has a
working version, and isn't interested in updating it?)
Warren wrote:
>There is a GPL'd replacement called Big Sister.
http://bigsister.graeff.com/
I have never used it so I can't comment on its functionality, but it
would solve the licensing issue.
Big Sister is BB cloned but using perl instead of shell scripts. It's
good, but the feedback I've gotten from users of both is that BB is still
better at this point.
Yes, it would be good to package it also. Giving people a choice would be
best,
wouldn't it? That way, either or both can be used.
In fact, I may ITP big sister too, just to make sure they can be
replacements for each other as packages.
Seth
Reply to: