Re: State of the slimserver package.
On 05-Mar-07, 15:12 (CST), Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk> wrote:
> The packages are not DFSG-compliant: they contain the whole of the
> software, with nothing removed, but the non-free stuff (missing in the
> official .debs) is not re-distributable.
None of which is a problem for the copyright holder distributing these
packages.
> The packages were based on at least some of my packaging work, but
> they have diverged considerably.
What was your license? Do you feel that your copyright has been
violated? If so, is it worth pursuing? Understand, I'm not urging you to
do so, just raising questions and causing trouble :-).
> The package in unstable is now signifcantly out of date, so I need to
> decide if I should put considerable effort into making new packages.
> I've already done enough work to determine that this will not be
> trivial. Given that Squeezebox users can now get Slimserver, packaged
> for Debian, directly from SlimDevices, I'm not particularly motivated to
> do this.
I don't see much reason for you to do so. People buying a Squeezebox
understand the situation they're getting into. I'd wager that the vast
majority of slimserver users use the original upstream package - I do
myself, as there wasn't a Debian package when I first installed, and I
didn't even notice your packages until a few weeks ago.
Do you have any idea how many people actually use your package?
> So the question is, what should I do? Should I try and maintain a
> parallel and not-as-good package in Debian? Should I orphan the package
> in case anyone else wants to try? Should the package be removed from
> Etch+1? If so, how can we tell users to go direct to SlimDevices instead?
I'd say do a new upload of your existing version, but add a
NEWS.Debian.gz describing the situation, and say that you're not going
to update the packages, and point people to the upstream archive. Try
to get this into Etch (should be okay with no functional changes.) Then
pull from Etch+1.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
Reply to: